ArbCom election 2018

[CrowsNest]

Do I know these people or what? I wrote the above before I had even seen that AN report of Fram against Drmies.

In which Fram was successful in showing/achieving......

-Drmies is a crap Administrator whose blocks cannot be deemed good

-Got plenty of powerful people to see it, including his potential future ArbCom colleagues

-Forced Drmies to eat shit for it because he can hardly do anything else to Fram

-Induced Drmies to also at least try and make this look bad for Fram, even if he had to eat shit for being found to have made a bad block, and failed, because Fram was of course already five steps ahead of Drmies, and so happily embraced the idea everyone should be paying close attention to the sort of crap Administrator Drmies is, precisely because he's currently seeking office as Super-Administrator, theoretically making him Fram's boss

-made Administrators who assume Drmies knows what he is doing, look like fools

-Forced Bbb23 to have to make a dumb defence of his Wikibuddy

-Enticed Ritchie333 to make an ever dumber attempt to defend his Wikibuddy ('cos Ritchie hates Fram, and is fucking dumb)

-Made NewYorkBrad look like an idiot for appearing able to predict the future just so he could clear a rogue Administrator of negligence, even though it is highly likely he has no actual statistical evidence much less Wikipedia case law to back up his prediction that their action likely saved Wikipedia from harm (and he's a fucking lawyer!)

-Made Floquenbeam look like an idiot for foolishly trying to support Drmies' pathetic victim narrative, which is only sustainable if you buy into the idea that when someone is running for ArbCom, you should not be looking at what they do as an Administrator, not even during the voting period, even though that is the time they are most likely trying to be the best Administrator they know how to be, and especially not if your questions to them have already revealed they are the sort of Administrator who happily ignores policy when it suits. That is apparently a dick move. This merely reinforced the idea most people will already have of Floquenbeam - he absolutely hates anybody and everybody who seeks to hold Wikipedia Administrators to account. They are all dicks.

Best $1,000 I ever invested.

Now Fram, do you want the lump sum, or monthly instalments?



HAVE A NICE DAY, DRMIES

Dumbass.

[CrowsNest]

Yet more proof that a vote for Opabina is a vote for weak and indecisive non-leadership.....

Yes, I am quite sure Jytdog really did mean to help, and really was doing this in good faith, and really won't do this exact thing again, but history doesn't show that the concepts are getting through here. I'm not sure if an admonishment is really more admonishing than a block, and I'm not sure a "you're on your last chance, really really for real this time" response is going to work any better this time than last time. Long-term committed volunteers are valuable and their investment should be recognized, but man, if somebody's judgment is this far off from community norms, I don't know what to do about that. We can't have "written policy" for every possible bad idea someone might have; we really have to be able to trust that once you've had an idea like "hey, I should give this guy a call!" your brain will kick in and say "oh wait, no, that would be creepy and weird, I'll just try his talk page again". I don't have a vote yet; I don't want a case with all the trimmings (there's no disputed evidence to speak of) but this just cannot keep happening and I don't think "admonishing" gets us there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you really believed history shows nothing else is getting through, and you think one more admonishment or block isn't going to cut it, then you really do know what to do, if you are a Wikipedia Arbitrator. She won't do it, because she knows proposing a motion for a site ban, even just for six months, would make her look like the bad guy. And for all her talk, she really doesn't like that. She can't do the job, so she shouldn't have took the job. You would hope the voters remove that choice from her this time around, but they won't, chiefly due to the lack of six candidates who are less bad.

And this is all before we realise that yes, a case is needed, because a lot of the evidence about this incident is being disputed by many, both in fact and interpretation, and at the very least, Jytdog is owed the chance to dispute any notion that history shows what Opabina says it does. I mean, it does, but she has form for saying things like that off the cuff, which later turn out not to be true (Joefromrandb was a serial asshole, he wasn't being brought before ArbCom for a single utterance of "fuck off"), so due process entitles Jytdog to answer her charges in a proper forum.

To cap it all off, this gender traitor chose this case to be the one where she played her gender card......

Furthermore, at the risk of the flaming that usually happens when someone raises a point about gender in a discussion that wasn't previously about that topic, I am going to underline here just how creepy it is for a woman to receive unsolicited contact from a male stranger over something as trivial as a disagreement on a website. Even (maybe especially) if it's supposed to be "help". Of course I have no knowledge of the gender of the person on the other end of the phone, and no evidence that it's at all relevant to this incident; I mention it because it's relevant to the precedents under consideration here and to a full appreciation of the sheer magnitude of the misjudgment.

Needless to say, I doubt there is anyone, not even Wikipedians, who don't appreciate this point. They may not accept it, but it isn't their call when considering a Case Request. What is not appreciated by the Wikipedians, is stuff like how "fuck off" is received differently between genders. It seems obvious to me that this will be a weak influencer of behaviour in Jytdog's case, otherwise it would be a far more common behavioural issue in the mostly male Wikipedia community. As common as, say, telling people to fuck off......

[Graaf Statler]

That gender card is the most played and misused wild card of Wikipedia. Be as much a genderbitch as you want, play constant your gender card and you always win.
Male or female, does't matter. I am very curious what Drmies his genderbitch account is where he is talking about what he had created by the way .

[CrowsNest]

It probable can't happen this year given who else is standing, but with just a little variance on those initial conditions, one or two fewer qualified candidates perhaps, and you can soon see outcomes where Drmies beats Joe Roe to the last spot, and by some margin, even though Drmies likely registers more opposes in that face off.

The key is in how divisive but well known figures can easily get way more support votes than highly thought of but largely unknown or rookie candidates. The questions theoretically mitigate against that, but only if you really believe people vote support based on the questions alone, as opposed to voting neutral or not voting at all.

This explains why Floquenbeam was dead against changing the system, presumably because he has already figured out that while most people genuinely seem to think registering more opposes than another candidate would ensure they lose out to that other candidate (on the basis an oppose vote is an explicit objection to them serving in the role), it isn't likely to be true when his wikibuddy Drmies is up against someone like Joe, or indeed any first year cadet fresh out of Admin school.

[Graaf Statler]

Apparently Bishonen thinks the pedophile comment is fine because it was part of a question.

Guido, I have read the texts where it is about, and let I say it in a moderated and polite way. Your texts can be interpreted very easily in this way, and I, as a Duch native speaker don't know what to think about them.
Anyway, I can understand they are interpreted in the way Fram and Bishonen does, although I myself wouldn't call it what they do. But my strong advice is to remove them from the internet because at least moral they are very objectionable, because even writing with suggestions in the direction of pedophile is what we call in Dutch een hellend vlak. A slippery slope. And I want to stipulate I don't accuse you of doing anything criminal.

And in this way I want to defend Michel too. Because I should offer Guido a cup of coffee too, but that does't mean I, or Michel approve misusing children. Or even Guido does. Because thank god most pedophiles behave themself in a proper way and live only with there fantasy and I have no reason to think Guido doesn't. Having this feelings is no crime, but the message is hands of of children! And I also agree with Michel maybe we, the Dutch have a other vision about this than the Americans, it is a culture different. But let it be clear, doing wrong things with children is a heavy crime in Holland!

Sympathy for the devil here because for the rest both gentleman have treated me like a piece of shit! Or even worser.

[CrowsNest]

Sheer desperation......

Question from User:GRuban
......Higher up on this page, you are linking to an alternate account that (apparently?) gives your real name, and saying that people know it's you. You (presumably?) have a pretty detailed interview on the Wikipedia blog, in which you write you are proud of your Wikipedia contributions and used them to get tenure (! Congratulations for that, BTW!) ...and yet, you don't link to any of this on your user page. So it's sort of like you want Wikipedia insiders who have been around a while to know who you are. And you want people in your real life to know who you are. But don't want to make it easy for other Wikipedia users? Is this the intent?

I'm not sure what you're asking, GRuban: "other" Wikipedia users don't, I assume, have much of a need to find out who that other account is. The intent, as I stated before, was to not let the flood of harassment (see the protection of my talk page, for instance, and if you're an admin you'll see why) easily drip from this account, which is that of an administrator who has blocked many a vandal, into that account. That's all. "you don't link to any of this on your user page"--you mean I don't link to the blog, where they did their best to present me in a specific light? I didn't--why would I do that on my user page? One of these LTAs already has my home address, and another complained to me at my HR department, and a third wrote a letter to my chair, the chancellor, and the board of trustees. The more I publicize my real name from this account, the worse it gets, and I'll tell you, by now I'm wondering about the wisdom of any of this--by which I mean editing Wikipedia, using Wikipedia for teaching, helping administer the place.

I love how he takes it upon himself to assume other editors don't need to know the connection. Classic Drmies - if he thinks he doesn't need to follow a policy, he won't follow the policy. I can think of at least two reasons uninvolved editors need to know - common courtesy to avoid confusion given the two accounts interact, and to ensure his COI can be monitored. There are probably others. The media needing to be able to fact check this blog post without asking for further details, for example (since we know Drmies' wikibuddy Dennis Brown blocks journalists who dare to ask questions on sight, ironically because he has unilaterally declared they are violating the Terms of Use by not declaring as paid editors)

[CrowsNest]

Seriously, how badly are certain Wikipedia scumbags now regretting throwing the rule book out the window just because they were scared shitless of Fred Bauder's restoring civility platform?

I bet it's killing them, seeing Fram take their bullshit approach to ethics and governance, and exploit it for his own ends.....

Drmies is running on a platform of transparency, but in reality is running on a platform of lies and deceit. There is very little reason to be collegial in such a situation. Fram (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Go on, you hypocrites, block Fram for his personal attack and ABF why don't you. That I would love to see.

Where's Queen Bishonen when she's needed?

[Dysklyver]

There are some parallels here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Candidates/A_Den_Jentyl_Ettien_Avel_Dysklyver/Questions#Questions_from_Fram

And when Fram said:

Thanks, I'll start the procedure to get your NPR rights revoked (and perhaps to get some topic bans or a mentor for you) tomorrow at WP:AN.

She really meant that she would get me an indefinite block and shortly afterwards a site ban. Indeed I refused point blank to withdraw, and forced therefore the creation of the "disqualified candidate" section.

So what will happen to Drmies? I doubt he will be site banned, but it looks like Fram is going for making sure he doesn't become an Arb at the very least, maybe Fram is trying to get Drmies to withdraw, or failing that force the issue.

[Graaf Statler]

Be glad you are not on Wikipedio.

Singora, that's enough of that.

About the this in the members only section:

Bishonen, no problem with the move, but there is little reason to be collegial about the re-election of a failed Arbcom member who defends the indefensible and makes the most ridiculous attacks to deflect the attention of his own misbehaviour (his edits at AN yesterday are exemplary, apparently it's dangerous for other admins to unblok someone I feel is unfairly blocked, because I urged for the reban of (Redacted) GdB, where Drmies had supported the unban, failed to either mention it (or his supposed topic ban) to the community or monitor his edits, and still feels the editor is a good enough chap to invite over to his house for a coffee). Drmies is running on a platform of transparency, but in reality is running on a platform of lies and deceit. There is very little reason to be collegial in such a situation. Fram (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

He, tarantino, would life not a lot more easy for you if you move to North Korea? Together with Jake? Because in that case the two of you can change with a few guys who are living there who should love to live in a country with freedom of speech.
It is only a suggestion, nothing else, but I am sure the two of you feel at home there! And you will love it there!

And maybe you can take Drmies with you, and can he ask for a North Korean pasport and give his Dutch pasport back. And become a professor at the University of Pyongyang, because they have no internet there and who knows he can find the time to teach his students instead of trolling all day around. It is only a suggestion, nothing else.

[CrowsNest]

Tarage is a symptom of the problem. While his comments may be more incivil than those typically made at ANI, they are of a comparable substance to the average. That's not a good thing. The entire process of being dragged before a public noticeboard to resolve a dispute and be evaluated by the regulars there, and in some cases mocked or joked about, is completely contrary to any best practices surrounding dispute resolution. I still remember how unpleasant it was the one time I was dragged to a noticeboard on Meta, and that was nearly eight years ago now. I support a 3-6 month topic ban for repeated incivil and inappropriate behaviour at ANI, and hope that it sends a broader message that better behaviour is expected in general at that location. I doubt it will, but one can hope. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed at least two admins above commented that they had long felt and often noticed Tarage's obnoxiousness/obnoxious behavior at ANI, but yet they never blocked Tarage for it. Boing! said Zebedee warned Tarage three months ago about their behavior at ANI and when Tarage continued that behavior, they still weren't blocked. I don't know, I could be wrong, but lately it seems there is an unwillingness to block editors for disruptive/uncivil behavior, instead just letting it slide, making the editor feel comfortable and emboldened in continuing that behavior. Tarage's talk page is littered with comments about their uncivil behavior, but yet their block log shows only one block which was quickly undone. If admins can see that warnings aren't working, why aren't they blocking that editor, with escalating blocks as needed. This piling on just doesn't feel right to me, and I'm willing to give Tarage another chance to show that they have heard what the community is saying about their behavior, and take that on board to have a better attitude towards fellow editors. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like Wikipedia needs an ArbCom that is going to lead from the front, reassert basic policy and clamp down on the minority (9% according to research) of established editors who account for most of the toxicity.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

What they're going to get is Drmies reunited with his wiki girlfriend Opabina. More chance of ArbCom producing toxic babies than condemning their future uncles to a life in a penal colony.

Whatever the makeup of ArbCom, at the end of their term, you will get good odds that The Rambling Man is still around, Beyond My Ken (Tarage's spirit guide) will still be around, and Wikipedia Administration will still be the purview of weak and ineffective Administrators like Boing!, who showed exactly what they were all about when they went after the only candidate in this election who openly said they were standing on a platform of restoring behavioural standards. That it was Eric Corbett that they allowed to wander back in to violate his topic ban to kick it all off, and still nothing was done, shows you more than anything I could say, that nothing will be done.

Wikipedia has been paralysed, it is in the grip of those who pay lip service at best, or outright undermine at worst, it's theoretical core principle that everyone deserves respect, that you alone are responsible for your own behaviour, and that you do not get to pick and choose how you treat people according to your own moral code.

This ineffective leadership, the laxity and corruption it has allowed to flourish, is the reason why people like Jytdog come to be such a problem. People knew he was a loose cannon, just as they knew what Tarage was all about. All it took for them to get away with it, was for others to pretend like it was someone else's problem to deal with.

Y'know what, Wikipediots? It's YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM to deal with. You. That's the model you signed up for. If you want us to deal with your problems, then give us the keys and wait over there.......