Wikipedia Sucks!

Risker scaring the children......

On what basis do you come to the conclusion that this reaction (or something akin to it) was not expected or predicted? I've been working since Day One on the assumption that it was pretty much entirely predicted to shake out the way that it has. Even the timing is not surprising, occurring within a week of a long-scheduled board meeting. So far, none of this has surprised me. Maybe it's because I spend a lot more time operating at the "global" level. Risker (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Change is, by design, disruptive. They may not have predicted this exact response to the disruption, but I am certain they anticipated that the action would cause disruption. There have been a lot of indications that changes in the management of user behaviour were coming. Keep in mind that T&S and the WMF aren't just dealing with English Wikipedia, and that our user behaviour problems, while minor compared to some other small projects, have a disproportionate impact on the perception of the global umbrella of projects. The fact that it is now out in the open that these changes have been in progress for over a year, and that various iterations of similar penalties have already been imposed on other projects, tells us that this is part of a larger plan. I do have the advantage of being personally acquainted with at least half of the people involved in T&S or in the chain of authorization for OFFICE actions, and none of them are fools; every one of the ones I know would have fully anticipated that Enwiki would go "nuts" when they made their first OFFICE local block here. The WMF - and the Board, just about every member of whom is actively involved in the work being done on the 2030 strategy development - has been moving toward a more global approach to just about everything for a long time, and here on this project we've generally been turning a blind eye to it and acting as though we're too important to mess with. We don't exist in a vacuum, much as some may want to think we do. Risker (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether or not disruption (which I'm sure they'd agree this is) is the same thing as destruction (which is a lot more questionable). In a lot of ways, our project is becoming increasingly self-destructive. How many people on this project know that the majority of sub-Saharan African Wikipedians edit either this project or French Wikipedia? How welcoming are we to them? Do we seek them out, treat them with respect, understand that they're probably better arbiters of what constitutes a reliable source about Kenya or Lesotho than those of us sitting in the Northern Hemisphere? Are we dealing effectively with edits coming out of the Indian subcontinent, another major global area contributing to our new editor cadre? We aren't talking about that stuff on this project, and I'll lay odds that most people are completely unaware of where the potential for new growth is coming from, and the support systems and mechanisms that oldies like us had when we first started editing just don't exist anymore.
As a community, we've embraced globalization throughout the WMF when we've thought it to our advantage. We were happy with the introduction of SUL, a lot of people were genuinely excited with the introduction of global preferences and global user pages, we were pretty much thrilled to bits with the introduction of the "paid editing" clauses to the TOU, and we were proud to be the pilot projects of what became the global legal fees assistance program. The roots of the Trust & Safety program are right here on English Wikipedia, and many of the activities we are seeing now on a global level were first developed to address issues on this project; when you look at the list of OFFICE banned users, more than 2/3 of them primarily edited this project.

This is wandering pretty far off-topic here, but I suppose my key point is that we're not doing a great job ourselves of resolving the low- and medium-level user behaviour problems, despite knowing for years that they've been adversely affecting new editorship, and there's good reason to believe they've affected editor retention, as well. These are really hard problems to solve - and they're problems in just about every type of online community. I don't think this was the best way to address things, but to be honest I suspect we would have wound up with almost the same discussion if the T&S team had come here and said "hey you've got some user behaviour problems that are adversely affecting your project, and we suggest doing XYZ" than if they just did XYZ. We wouldn't have wound up with the desysop/crat issues, but I'm pretty sure it would have been just as contentious otherwise. Risker (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Terms of Use are not opt-in. The OFFICE global ban program is not opt-in and in fact was created and expanded because of pressure by English Wikipedia. SUL was never opt-in; it was all-or-nothing. Global preferences is a preference program that affects anyone who, while logged in, goes to another Wikimedia project; it has defaults that are largely benign but it's not really opt-in. The use of the LFAP is optional for editors to whom it applies, but it applies regardless of what project(s) the editor contributes to. I don't really think any of the programs I've pointed out are really optional. Risker (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll note there's a difference between "you can create an alternate to the paid editing TOU but unless your community supports that, this TOU applies" and "you can opt in to this paid editing TOU". [Complete aside: I was the person who piloted the "alternate disclosure policy" for Mediawikiwiki and tech projects.] Coming back to the core issue that seems to be at the base of the WMF/T&S action here, we have long known that there are very serious difficulties in addressing behaviour issues amongst the group of editors who've been labeled "unblockable"; this group includes most administrators, and a lot of long-term prolific editors. In the latter case, they have in fact often been blocked, but the blocks don't tend to stick. There are probably only about 20-30 administrators who could successfully block an unblockable, and even then they'd be risking their bits to do so. I am certain that just about every administrator who carries out blocks has refrained from blocking one of those individuals at least in part because they know (even though the block has been more than earned) they'll spend days defending the block, and will likely burn up a good chunk of whatever social capital and sweat equity they have in doing so. We know as a community that this is a problem, we've known it for years, and we've avoided addressing it. Arbcom isn't the answer - it's not designed to address this sort of stuff, and we really haven't given it either the authority or responsibility of doing so. There have been complaints going back almost as long as I have been on this project (almost 15 years now) that our community can't or won't deal with this issue. So I'll go a bit further out on a limb than I have to this point: I don't think that T&S is the right answer here, either; it's not the process or the course of action I would have recommended (had I been consulted), nor the one that I think will achieve the best results. On the other hand, I don't think I or anyone else in this community has come up with any other, better courses of action.
I think perhaps the issue here is that there isn't a consensus on how to interpret the core action here. Some see it as a wake-up call that our user behaviour problems are more serious than we have admitted, and we need to make "human resources" type changes in our project. Some see it as a flat-out usurpation of community independence. Some see it as a much-needed step because the project has, in fact, failed to enforce its existing policies and/or has not developed processes or systems to address problems we know we have, and attempts to resolve these problems have not only been unsuccessful but have been openly and actively blocked. My suspicion is that elements of each of these perceptions are correct; that this one action has a lot more aspects to it than simply one issue. Risker (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times it's been discussed; I could probably come up with a list of 50 prior discussions, small and large, if I wanted to spend all weekend at it. At most, we've come up with genuinely tangential applications (e.g., not using external websites to attack people) but really haven't hit the core "low-intensity chronic aggression" issues. And now this recent discussion has lost its way, too. So...how do we get the discussion to stay on track, to come up with actionable positions and plans that address general comportment rather than fringe cases, and then bring it into force? That's the most important challenge we face. Risker (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram letting the cat out of the bag from his exile on Commons.......

I would invite the WMF to provide their evidence to a number of trusted enwiki people who have no real reason to defend me, but whom I still trust to be impartial. People like Newyorkbrad, Drmies, Ymblanter, GorillaWarfare, Giant Snowman, ... Let them judge the evidence in private, without sharing it with me; if they agree that a) th evidence is compelling, and b) it couldn't have been handled in public, then so be it.

About your claim that Arbcom should have slapped me with blocks year ago: this might well be true, but then perhaps someone should have raised a decent case with ArbCom about this? It isn't that hard to get ArbCom to sanction misbehaving admins, I have raised (or contributed to) such cases a few times in the past. I can't help if it others don't use this avenue.

His preference for trial by en.wiki is not so much about the basic principles of transparency or a fair trial by his peers, as it is about his near certainty that in a trial by en.wiki, he would have been cleared, or let off with some piddling reminder.

And there's really no reason to believe the Trust & Safety department wouldn't have foreseen that outcome, and so rather than referring the complaint to ArbCom, adjudicated it themselves. To, as they say, ensure minimal standards are applied on all projects. Or as the tin foil hat wearers are claiming, to get a vocal critic out of the way, or do a favour for the CoBot.

If, as Fram and most of en.wiki seem to think, and is in all likelihood the case, all the evidence the WMF looked at to convict is public, there is nothing actually stopping en.wiki holding some sort of trial in absentia, either using ArbCom or a special proceeding with exactly those Administrators sitting on the bench. He could even be present, if his apparent freedom to use Commons as string telephone continues (funny how Commons, regularly pilloried by en.wiki as scum of the highest order, is being quite nice to him in that regard). Everyone could get together, trawl through his last few years contributions, find his worst episodes or most fraught campaigns. The tiny minority could play Devil's Advocate and present the case for the prosecution, while the rebels could play the part of the defence. Then we will see if en.wiki would have cleared him.

CrowsNest wrote:Risker scaring the children......

Yes, but don't forget Risken is a user from the German Wiki, and he know who those central European wiki idiots waving with pirate flags are. Because that Jan Eißfeldt is also from that club.
He know them, just like I know them, and WMF loves them!
I think because WMF thinks they can change something with European copyright, what is rediciles. And they are extreem productive with producing junk, and that is what WMF wants.

Because there is the kings drama and Fram is expelled for exacte the same reason I was, he didn't like that tampering with copyright and Wikidate with that CC-00 licence. And the gender nonsens of Wikipedia. And that all together is a very good reason for a SanFanBan for WMF.

The_Adversary wrote:Were you the one who complained to the foundation about Fram’s harassment of arbitrators?

Who the fuck has even said the complaint(s?) was for "harassment", or concerned Fam's conduct toward Arbitrators?

Maybe people will pay more attention to your witch hunt, if you, y'know, DIDN'T KEEP TALKING SHIT

Fucking morons. These loons are meant to be seen as the investigators here? Fuck off.

Primary suspect is now Rob, according to CSI:FUCKWIT. Their grounds? Fram has fingered them from his Commons exile. In a post where he says speculation on who the RAT is, should not be done.

Just keeps digging his own grave, with investigators like MrErnie giving him all the encouragement he needs.

The facts are clear. Way back in January 2018 Fram had promised that he was going to work on trying to stop being the sort of uncooperative argumentative wikilawering drama addicted fuck he was becoming known for being, even in the community where being an uncooperative argumentative wikilawering drama addicted fuck isn't really seen as that big of a deal, if, y'know, you're also doing good work at the same time.

From his Commons exile, Fram is now having an argument with former Arbitrator Rob over whether or not he was right to remove a single edit by Rob from a case workshop, and as you might have guessed, it features all the argumentative combative dickish wikilwayering pettifoggery you would expect.......

this was an ArbCom case I was already involved in[7] and where I had all related pages added to my watchlist (evidence, workshop and proposed decision). I was rather surprised to see an arb edit through protection to ask a question on a page which isn't opened yet (at all, not for arbs, not for others) and where people weren't even allowed to respond. This was a clear misuse of the admin tools. I reverted this, after which Bu Rob threatened to block me (well, to get me blocked "as a clerk action"). I invited him to take it to ANI, which they never did, as they were probably aware that their own action was clearly against policy in the first place.

Note that the page were I reverted BU Rob stated at the top "The workshop phase of this case does not open until 00:00 UTC May 8th. Edits made to this page before that date will be removed." (bold in original). The edit I reverted was made on the 5th, so way before the startdate given. Furthermore, that page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", unlike the proposed decision page which should only be edited by arbs and clerks. Probably the reason that no arb or clerk indicated any displeasure at all about my edit. Their statement that "If you do it again, you are highly likely to be blocked as a clerk action for violating the procedures of this case." was a complete fabrication, as no procedures of the case were violated by me, only by BU Rob...
So this means that the "evidence" that I "followed him to multiple unrelated places" etcetera boils down to one unrelated place where I was already active, causing his misuse of the admin tools to appear on my watchlist.

This is Fram all over. "I was rather surprised" is a classic Framism. This is basically who he was as a Wikipedia Administrator, a petty, argumentative, dramatic, wikilawyering fuck, all masquerading as someone who has the utmost concern for the rules of the project. Sadly, just not someone who ever had the wherewithal to realize it has several rules which basically say don't waste everyone else's precious time by making them care about this sort of pathetic and obviously by this stage, personal feud.

Fram would only have made a good Administrator had he worked on what he said he was going to work on. In hindsight, I think we all know why he made such promises - like most of the assholes on Wikipedia, they're cogniscent that the system is very forgiving of assholes who promise to do better. Sadly for English Wikipedia, it has become a place where such promises are never monitored for compliance, as they also know. Nobody, for example, is monitoring RexxS' promise to be more passive and less acerbic as an Administrator. This guy......

I for one, am not willing to stand by and see T&S arbitrarily impose a parallel, yet unaccountable, scheme of dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. If you want to meet your remit and supply support for editors who don't feel able to use our dispute resolution procedures themselves, then bring a case on their behalf and allow the community's elected ArbCom to decide the case. Otherwise you need to consider why the English Wikipedia should not simply abandon its present procedures, disband ArbCom and refer all of the disputes to T&S. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No swear words, sure, but as aggressive and presumptive and drama laden and spoiling for a fight as Fram ever was. Just a bigger issue is all, but that simply means he has to be even less of a dick, not more. Over and above issues of simple decorum, what with Administrators supposedly being held to higher standards of course, his threat to not stand idly by has to be interpreted as an intent to do exactly what his mentor Bishonen did, and use his Administrative powers to change the course of events directly, toward his own political ends. He had, of course, already made his position clear......

Fram is a highly valued, long term editor and admin

.....despite this being at odds with the fact opinions like this from the highest levels of English Wikipedia governance were on record.......

[Fram] should have been desysopped and likely banned a while back

English Wikipedia has become the place where they think this sort of misconduct, this naked aggression built on total lies, is acceptable from their WP:ADMINISTRATORS. Just as they have developed similar blindness about WP:CIVILITY etc.

Hence why RexxS, and his Queen Bishonen, and all her Feudal Lords, are pretty upset that Administrators like Fram are now accountable to a higher authority than English Wikipedia's absurd system of local governance, and they won't have to do something as bad as groom children for it to be brought into play.

Trust and Safety cleaned house. Nobody can deny it. Nobody who would come across to an external observer as possessing the sort of personal attributes described in WP:ADMIN anyway.

CrowsNest wrote:Trust and Safety cleaned house. Nobody can deny it. Nobody who would come across to an external observer as possessing the sort of personal attributes described in WP:ADMIN anyway.

Can be, but all patch-up. As long as WMF doesn't fix the system errors and doesn't hold a massive clean up they have not a single change to survive with there out of date internet product. Not a single change. There trollopedia will hit by the same fate and doom as the Titanic, and Jimmy's place in the American history will be next to John R. Brinkley.

Mark my words.

Graaf Statler wrote:

CrowsNest wrote:Trust and Safety cleaned house. Nobody can deny it. Nobody who would come across to an external observer as possessing the sort of personal attributes described in WP:ADMIN anyway.

Can be, but all patch-up. As long as WMF doesn't fix the system errors and doesn't hold a massive clean up they have no change to survive with there out of date internet product. Not a single change.

Yes, for clarity, I mean they had begun the process of cleaning house, Fram being just one of many Administrators who singularly fail to meet the expected minimal standards as written. Taking that cleanup exercise to its logical fruition, a systemic correction, will be a case of kill or cure. Maybe Wikipedia could never survive if its Administrators were behaving as advertised, and maybe that really is because the whole place is only really attractive to highly dysfunctional people, the lunatics having quickly taken over the asylum, as Larry Sanger laments. Maybe they did have the right initial conditions, they were just insufficiently wary of the dangers of not maintaining standards from the get go, and didn't see the consequences of Queen Bishonen effectively seizing power from King Jimmy before he could properly finish the task of transferring his powers to the fragile New Republic, condemning it to a period of Middle Ages type governance.

This behaviour by the WMF may be here to stay. Similar clamps on free speech are currently happening on social media sites around the world. So is it that, following Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, the WMF are eager to show they are up with the play by unpersoning and disappearing their own community members? There is nothing new about this on Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales initiated similar crackdowns on the more able content creators a few years ago. It was his attempt to placate an infestation of social networkers who wanted to control them. Now it seems the WMF is hunting for community members they can disappear, charging them with the one act guaranteed to generate mindless outrage – the political incorrectness of saying something someone else didn't want to hear. Or, as the WMF likes to put it, "harassment and/or abusing others".

Damnation comes easily this way on the basis of evidence from anonymous informers that only the WMF knows about. Even the WMF becomes anonymous at this point, and the charge itself is made by a faceless apparatus called the WMFOffice. No details of the charge is offered, merely that there is a charge. No review is offered, no defence is possible. We have no idea whether Fram was engaged in serious bullying, and it seems Fram has no idea what the charges relate to either. Liberal principles of justice have been abandoned. Guilt is final on the grounds that an unknown charge has been made by a faceless apparatus. The same suppression techniques Kafka wrote about and Stasi implemented. The Committee needs to establish whether this behaviour by the WMF is likely to continue as part of a wider alignment with the clamps on free speech by other social networks, or whether the current incidents are just an aberration. – Epipelagic (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, complaints based on a false narrative. On Wikipedia, there is no Free speech, there is no natural justice, there is only a private corporation and it's unpaid volunteer army acting on the collective will to proceed with the mission. Pursuant to that, in an environment of martial law, you sure as shit can be banned without knowing the identity of your accuser or the evidence it is based on.

This dispute over the procedural specifics over which unit can do what and when, is simply happening because the volunteer army failed to properly check their status, is all. The relationship is superior-subordinate, as it is in any army. ArbCom are essentially just the non-commissioned officers. Fram is at best a Corporal, and as such he never had any right to have all of his conduct examined only by the Sergeants. You gotta check your Regulations, soldiers!

If these people want a serious discussion about the Stasi methods employed by the movement, we have all the evidence they might ever need. They've just always seemed awfully reluctant to break ranks and read the stuff which puts it all into proper context - everyone given medals and promotion in the movement is typically always guilty of high crimes commensurate with the mission objectives, even the lowly Coprorals. And we know what damage over-zealous Corporals can do it you don't bust them back into line.

The civilian populace is still waiting for the Army to properly investigate Corporal Dennis Brown for having used a Captain's powers without authority, in furtherance of a decidedly Stasi objective. We have tried putting it before the non-commissioned officers, and our emissaries were assassinated.......apparently our requests interfered with your mission.

In countries where the army is at cross purposes to the civilian population, well, it's never really a good sign, is it?

HTD.

CrowsNest wrote:Yes, for clarity, I mean they had begun the process of cleaning house, Fram being just one of many Administrators who singularly fail to meet the expected minimal standards as written. Taking that cleanup exercise to its logical fruition, a systemic correction, will be a case of kill or cure. Maybe Wikipedia could never survive if its Administrators were behaving as advertised, and maybe that really is because the whole place is only really attractive to highly dysfunctional people, the lunatics having quickly taken over the asylum, as Larry Sanger laments. Maybe they did have the right initial conditions, they were just insufficiently wary of the dangers of not maintaining standards from the get go, and didn't see the consequences of Queen Bishonen effectively seizing power from King Jimmy before he could properly finish the task of transferring his powers to the fragile New Republic, condemning it to a period of Middle Ages type governance.

All true, but the real reason why T&S wanted to get ride of Fram is because he is agains a industrial Wikipedia, He was standing in there way for there Movement strategy 2030, see postings Risker.
What of course has totally failed with there pirate nonsense, that's clear. Just listen what Alex Voss had to say to them, it was a clear message before he took the digital Roundup in his hand. Governing by shitstorm, what did they think, Europe wanted them? Jokers!

And about Queen Bishonen or Queen MoiraMoira, that is about the same level, well, let I make my statement a bit more gender neutral. Those brave wikipedians in general are not what you should call the high end of the human gender pool, not only the wiki woman. In Dutch we say ze zijn zo stom als het achtereind van een varken allemaal, stupide as the ass of a pig. Because that is what they all are, unbelieveble, didn't know there existed such a stupide people on this globe.

Maybe about time for them to do the the first class of the kindergarten again? Because that can be a solution and fits exact in there metal age.

What a fuckheads!

BURob13 wrote:It's worth noting that every major website with community contributions has a Trust & Safety department these days. It's necessary.

Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Whatsapp, you name it, it has a Trust & Safety department or close equivalent.

Yes Rob, they have, but we are here speaking of a Trolling & "Safety" department, with chief troll Jan Schwanz in charge. And I doubt if the other sites have such a department too and if it is necessary.
But a wise decision to concentrate you on your study, because wikipedia is a complete waste of time. (And money)