Fram banned by WMF

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:37 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:18 pm
There is a difference between saying you can't know who was the complainant and asserting someone wasn't the complainant or that someone else was the complainant. My stance on this is not "speculation" as that implies a lack of firm evidence.
The only thing you and I have been debating is whose complaint triggered the month-long investigation, Fæ's complaint as documented (we don't know precisely what he said) or a hypothetical but plausible one from Laura Hale about th portal deletion vote. I actually think the argument from elegance points to Fæ, as we know for a fact that he did complain to T&S at the right time amd T&S indicated a different anonymous complainer.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:48 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:37 am
The only thing you and I have been debating is whose complaint triggered the month-long investigation, Fæ's complaint as documented (we don't know precisely what he said) or a hypothetical but plausible one from Laura Hale about th portal deletion vote. I actually think the argument from elegance points to Fæ, as we know for a fact that he did complain to T&S at the right time amd T&S indicated a different anonymous complainer.
Don't know where you get that T&S indicated a different complainer. I think every other explanation is complicating things more than necessary by speculating about various other people. We don't have to posit that someone else had the thought to complain to Trust and Safety about Fram over ArbCom or the community. Also has the added benefit of not really mattering even if it should turn out to be false, though I don't consider it likely to be anything but true (maybe 95-99% confidence in this being it). Hale was already outed as a likely complainant by Hale and the Foundation themselves from the previous two actions. She threw herself to the wolves and then the Foundation covered her in wolf bait. Even if she is only extremely likely to be responsible for the third action, the fact it is essentially known because of Hale and the Foundation themselves that she is responsible for two out of three actions means that either way she played a significant part in making this happen and thus is already subject to extensive scrutiny. Why baselessly speculate about someone else who is most likely innocent when there is compelling evidence against someone we already know is not?

Edit: Cowards.

Edit 2: Fun fact, did you know the author at Slate who wrote that vehemently pro-Foundation piece citing the Signpost where Gamaliel is an anonymous complainant and the statement openly vouching for the Foundation process from Wikimedia DC where Gamaliel is head of communications is also mutuals with Gamaliel on Twitter? Coincidence? Possibly. Slate author is mutuals with Wikimedia DC itself and various Wikipedians, but still . . . one wonders who the "Wikipedian with knowledge of the matter" is that told the author "the trained staff on the Trust and Safety team would not have acted unless it was incredibly obvious that serious harassment had occurred, that it was long-lasting, and that there were concerns about maintaining the privacy of the individuals who had been targeted." Gamaliel did bill himself as exactly that communicating essentially the same message in multiple places. Again, could be a coincidence.

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:21 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:48 am
Even if she is only extremely likely to be responsible for the third action, the fact it is essentially known because of Hale and the Foundation themselves that she is responsible for two out of three actions means that either way she played a significant part in making this happen and thus is already subject to extensive scrutiny. Why baselessly speculate about someone else who is most likely innocent when there is compelling evidence against someone we already know is not?
I agree with everything you've said except for that last sentence. It is not "baseless speculat[ion]" that Fæ complained to T&S about a discussion in which Fram was prominently in the opposition. it's right there on-wiki. That you call it that is not dissimilar from Staatler saying that your own Sola Laura theory is baseless speculation. I won't buy that Fæ is "most likely innocent" until I see a copy of what he sent T&S. Fæ himself hasn't denied it despite ample opportunities and several open invitations to do so. He still hasn't responded to my emails seeking to clear this up.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:38 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:21 am
I agree with everything you've said excaept for that last sentence. It is not "baseless speculat[ion]" that Fæ complained to T&S about a discussion in which Fram was prominently in the opposition. it's right there on-wiki. That you call it that is not dissimilar from Staatler saying that your own Sola Laura theory is baseless speculation. I won't buy that Fæ is "most likely innocent" until I see a copy of what he sent T&S. Fæ himself hasn't denied it despite ample opportunities and several open invitations to do so.
I call it that because it is baseless to say he complained about Fram. He did not indicate that he personally complained to Trust and Safety about anyone and only then he indicated any complaints sent should concern sock accounts presumably belonging to some other party. Fæ has no prior history of complaining about any other user to the Foundation outside obviously abusive users such as those sockpuppets. What I am suggesting isn't baseless as it only requires us to suggest she complained about something we already have hard evidence she would complain about to people we already have hard evidence to indicate she had already complained to about Fram. All it requires us to believe is that she would see Fram's participation in that discussion and act on it in the same way she acted on previous incidents involving Fram, both of which we have actual evidence to support as likely as opposed to any of the other various people.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by EarlStatler » Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:54 pm

Star Chamber trails with unknown accuser and accusations belongs in creepy states and not even. They lead to false accusations, deep corruption and solve nothing at the end. Both Arbcom and T&S are perfect examples of Star Chambers. They protect the offenders and attack the victims and make things worser and worser and are in this way a part of the probelm called Wikipedia. A important part and at they end even a fatal part.

If the board, WMF not intervenes and plays constant the bal back to the extreem primitive wiki system, the community, these Star Chamber will be there Waterloo. Because Jimmy and the board and it's director constantly overestimate the extreem primitive wiki system as a solution for the problems. There expectations are far too high, and that is the real problem.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:20 pm

Well we're over a month out and Fram remains banned.

The community has been astoundingly ineffective. Lots of talk. No results.

ArbCom at this point is actively assisting the WMF with their delaying and stonewalling tactics.

What's so hard about transparency? I can understand not naming names, but to this day we still do not have the reason Fram was banned.

It's a power play, plain and simple. We have the information. You do not. It's why all the wikipedians aspire to be in ArbCom. They want access to the sooper-sekrit forum. The sleuthing mailing list.

It's infantile control tactics.

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Proabivouac » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:08 pm

Auggie wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:20 pm
ArbCom at this point is actively assisting the WMF with their delaying and stonewalling tactics.
Yep.
Auggie wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:20 pm
What's so hard about transparency? I can understand not naming names, but to this day we still do not have the reason Fram was banned.
When this would have taken only a minute or two for any committee member to explain. Most likely this is because about half the arbitrators are Foundationistas who have drunk this complainer anonymity Kool Aid, meaning that any case they manage to hold will be a stillborn mutant child of regular ArbCom and T&S "safe space" stupidity.

I heard some arbitrators say that they wanted to "do the right thing". The right thing now is to use a throwaway account to leak the T&S doc to a criticism site or just to other wikipedians who can be relied upon to distribute it further. You'd think that a site which claims to champion human knowledge would understand that getting the truth out there is even more important than unbanning Fram. The alternative is a giant question mark hanging forever over the history of Wikipedia.
Auggie wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:20 pm
The community has been astoundingly ineffective. Lots of talk. No results.
Portions of the community have been very effective, namely criticism sites which look to have decisively rid us of Laura Hale (thank you Vigilant!) and BU Rob13. That's not sufficient, but it's a damned good start and something neither "Trust and Safety" nor ArbCom would have done. Even now ArbCom is saying that they will open a case against Fram without examining the conduct of his accusers. It falls to us to hold them to account with our own principles, findings of fact and such remedies as are available to us.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:48 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:08 pm
When this would have taken only a minute or two for any committee member to explain. Most likely this is because about half the arbitrators are Foundationistas who have drunk this complainer anonymity Kool Aid, meaning that any case they manage to hold will be a stillborn mutant child of regular ArbCom and T&S "safe space" stupidity.
Right. They haven't even tried. Any organization capable of keeping its members in such lockstep conformity is frightening.
Proabivouac wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:08 pm
I heard some arbitrators say that they wanted to "do the right thing". The right thing now is to use a throwaway account to leak the T&S doc to a criticism site or just to other wikipedians who can be relied upon to distribute it further. You'd think that a site which claims to champion human knowledge would understand that getting the truth out there is even more important than unbanning Fram. The alternative is a giant question mark hanging forever over the history of Wikipedia.
I am not generally a fan of leaking but in this case, maybe. It's such a stupid insignificant thing. Fram is almost irrelevant at this point. Trust and Safety blew all its credibility as a resource for harassed individuals when it chose to become Maria Sefidari's tool for personal grudge-settling and to cover it up for over a month.

Rather than ArbCom, I would like to see someone in the Foundation leak. Or ideally, the Board should sack Maher for running a corrupt T&S and failing to fix it.
Proabivouac wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:08 pm
Portions of the community have been very effective, namely criticism sites which look to have decisively rid us of Laura Hale (thank you Vigilant!) and BU Rob13. That's not sufficient, but it's a damned good start and something neither "Trust and Safety" nor ArbCom would have done. Even now ArbCom is saying that they will open a case against Fram without examining the conduct of his accusers. It falls to us to hold them to account with our own principles, findings of fact and such remedies as are available to us.
Laura Hale is small potatoes. Just a run of the mill crybully/grifter. I was bored with her after the first five minutes.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by EarlStatler » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:52 pm

Come on, Pro. What Vig did was just throwing a few shit budgets in the direction of Hale in the hope he should hit her, but it was no evidence.
auggie wrote:What's so hard about transparency? I can understand not naming names, but to this day we still do not have the reason Fram was banned.
This is the only right conclusion, and all you write down here is again speculation. There is not any hard evidence of a Hale or Fæ conspiracy against Fram except in your and Vig his head. Not any proof! Only speculation and assumptions.

And if arbcom and the Arb's would really do the community and themself a favour they stop there Star Chamber practises and open the windows and let the light shine over this matter.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:20 pm

EarlStatler wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:52 pm
This is the only right conclusion, and all you write down here is again speculation. There is not any hard evidence of a Hale or Fæ conspiracy against Fram except in your and Vig his head. Not any proof! Only speculation and assumptions.

And if arbcom and the Arb's would really do the community and themself a favour they stop there Star Chamber practises and open the windows and let the light shine over this matter.
I reviewed the Laura Hale stuff myself. There is a documented history of conflict with Fram, combined with a loud Fram-hating proclamation on her talk page. To borrow some terms from our lawyer friend, for sure it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but at this point I would say the "preponderance of the evidence" points to her involvement.

If this is true, we have a big problem beyond Fram. We have a corrupt and discredited Trust and Safety group.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests