This is why Fram. This is why newbies don’t stick around. This is why the untrained and unclueful T&S, with their keystone rent-a-cops, are not capable of solving anything. You need to have a problem solving approach.
By that I do not mean the so-called “criticism” sites where someone who decides the problem is to get rid of any women in leadership positions by trying to prove they are corrupt, i.e. uppity, by hounding them, deleting the drafts on their user pages, and posting harassing photos of them on external websites. You know who you are. But what you have not revealed is who is paying you to do this.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
And yes they will get fooled again. And again. And again.
This one is for Graaf, he won’t need any lyrics.
Don’t dwell on what has passed away
Or what is yet to be,
Yeah the wars they will be fought again
The holy dove she will be caught again
Bought and sold and bought again
The dove is never free.
Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering; There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.
Fram has been compared to the iconic villain Javert from Les Misérables, who obsessively pursues his nemesis Jean Valjean, released from prison after serving 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread.
But looking through the cast of characters on the Framgate talk page, I’m not so sure. This week the German-speaking Gerda, who adores Eric Corbett and the c-bomb, has proposed not to refer to the toxic Wikipedia culture as “toxic”. (I propose the alternate term “fluffy bunnies”, with a search-and-replace to be done by a special civility bot). If that wasn’t Orwellian enough for you, Pine, who has worked his way through the various mailing lists attacking whatever women he found in leadership positions, is now posting his cringe-worthy missives to the wikimedia-l mailing list in their entirety.
Maybe the Framgate episode has a better parallel in the Dreyfus Affair, which divided the French culture, and eventually left the old guard in the dust.
Dreyfus was subjected to a vicious show-trial and imprisoned on the notorious Devil’s Island.
The majority of prisoners sent to Devil’s Island did not survive their first year.
To the old guard of the nationalist right, Dreyfus, “the Jew from Alsace”, represented everything they loathed. They had evidence of his innocence, but they suppressed it. Since the dossier against him was so slim, evidence was fabricated. An officer who did an independent investigation, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, discovered the real culprit was a French officer named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy who had been selling secret documents to Germany.
But the General Staff would not listen. To them, the matter was “res judicata“. A closed matter because it had already been adjudicated.
Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart was transferred to Tunisia, and later arrested. Esterhazy was unanimously acquitted in a closed court session after a 3-minute hearing.
Picquart communicated the results of his investigation to the General Staff, which opposed him under “the authority of the principle of res judicata”. After this, everything was done to oust him from his position, with the help of his own deputy, Major Henry [who had forged the document against Dreyfus -GD]. It was primarily the upper echelons of the Army that did not want to admit that Dreyfus’s conviction could be a grave miscarriage of justice. For Mercier, then Zurlinden and the General Staff, what was done was done and should never be returned to.
This might be an interesting phrase to remember the next time the arbcom refuses to answer their email.
Dreyfus was eventually exonerated and freed, but not without rioting in the streets. But the old guard was finished. Even though the right-wing authoritarian military for the moment remained in control of the political system, their days were numbered. The Dreyfus Affair is credited with the emergence of various socialist parties, the Zionist movement, and the French League for Human Rights, among others.
And Wikipedia? A police state where the admins, instead of enforcing the policy, now believe they have the authority to create policy through banning and blocking people whose criticism they do not agree with. So now it only remains to be seen which pogroms, this time against women, and anyone who defends them, will gain traction with which Wikipedia criticism sites, and which ones will end up backing “business as usual” and the abusive and authoritarian rule of the ‘old boyz club’.
More than even Fae, with his bondage fetish, Corbett seems to go out of his way to seek punishment. And Wikipedia’s “governance” system is tailor-made to keep punishing him over and over and over again, without ever putting him out of his misery. This reminds me of the story of the baby born prematurely who was put in intensive care, and had nurses thumping on his back with tiny toothbrushes to keep the lungs clear. Later, in childhood, the baby developed behavior problems and took every chance to do something that would result in getting hit, so as to reproduce that earlier pre-memory experience. Something profound must have happened to this Corbett guy, something that even he doesn’t remember. Or maybe sometimes kids take on responsibly for the stuff going on around them and think it’s all their fault, when it isn’t. Children often to not have a clear idea of boundaries, they do not understand they are not the same person as their parents, and have a separate existence –they think they are responsible for what someone else does, and end up in a guilt and punishment-seeking cycle of self-destruction. It is the problem of the adults to solve the adult problems and not put them as a burden on their children.
I have been hearing for some time now that Beestra was no longer an admin, but it didn’t come true until today. And not without pissing and moaning about Katherine and the board, and pinging several board members. But board member Pundit and former admin Boing! said Zebedee were unable to cajole him, and he is gone. Given his antics with his bot, he could very well have been Fram’s next target when the ban expires.
In spite of a prominent “Strike” message on his talk page, the error-prone Beetstra has dived right in at arbcom, micromanaging their process and misconfiguring a ping – having misspelled SilkTork’s user name, he merely corrects it without adding a new timestamp, which a ping must have in order to work.
Jehochman’s arbcom request targeting WMF staff
After his abortive attempt to build a case against Laura Hale, the smarmy Jehochman has filed a case request naming both Jan Essfeldt and Katherine Maher as “parties”. On Katherine’s talk page, Jehochman somewhat disingenuously mansplains to her that “Perhaps you will enjoy taking a close look at how the arbitration process works.” and admonishes her to “Please comment only in your own section.” What, are there no arbcom clerks about? Surely someone has developed a template to short-circuit this type of officiously condescending tripe. But he is probably too busy backchanneling with Bishonen and Worm that Turned.
What he fails to mention is that naming her and Jan as parties means Jehochman has placed them in a position where they can be sanctioned by arbcom, as well as Fram, using their infamous “boomerang”, placing arbcom in a position over the board of directors. Let’s see if the arbcom is willing to pick up that hot potato.
It is equally awkward that this wannabe Perry Mason has filed his show trial arbcom case request to conflict with the scheduled July 3 conference call between the WMF and arbcom.
In a nutshell, some of us want to edit, others want to use Wikipedia for dramah-dramah. Guess who is winning.
For instance “Does the person being harassed have a penis?” (Oh come on, you knew I was going to say that.)
Harassed person has penis?
No ======> take no action
Yes ======> go to next step
I think they are also leaving out how many times they actually do secretly go to arbcom and arbcom turns them down.
Harassed person has penis?
No ====> humbly ask arbcom to do something, arbcom will automatically refuse, unless penis
Arbcom refuses to take any action ====> WMF explains to harassed person, and surrounding persons who have witnessed the harassment, that they can not do anything about it, because arbcom
Yeah, that’s more like how it really is.
(And that’s why it can’t be Laura Hale, they just threw her to the wolves as a red herring. Have they not already said they would not identify the person(s) making the report? Obviously she is just one of the previous things Fram was warned about. And what has happened to her as a result of this office action is the poster child case for keeping these things private.)
[Do NOT let my Evil Twin find out I am writing this. I am supposed to be at the beach relaxing, which means NO ACCESS TO WIKIPEDIAZ DRAMAHZ.]
Ok I am being paged by someone at Wikipediocracy to comment on the Fram thing, so no, I do not have any answers but will make these observations.
I have been hearing rumblings about Fram for a looong time. That Something Would Have To Be Done. Why, I do not know, but you may recall it was Fram who dragged Dr Blofield off to arbcom just when he should have been getting a gold watch instead. I believe it was Fram who had something to do with the Rich Farmbrough thing. Also wasn’t he (she?) involved with the more recent Kudpung fiasco and the blocking of Gorilla Warfare? That should NEVER have happened. The fact that “The Community”, including arbcom, has not been able to establish a safe editing environment for both garden variety editors and female admins is a direct threat to the WMF business model. Also just noting that neither the presumed “Mario effect” or the “honor among thieves” theory of admins protecting each other was applied to GorillaWarfare, who has considerably more talent than most of them combined.
Wikipedia “governance” is vicious, and totally without checks and balances. That the WMF has had to step in is not surprising, but that system also lacks checks and balances. That said, people trust the WMF more than they trust arbcom and the admins.
While I haven’t read all the associated threads in detail, just judging by the multiple F-bombs in the discussion, there is more heat than light, and at this point it is just another pitchforks and tiki-torches parade on the part of teh communiteh.
Floqenbeam and Bishonen, lol. Bishonen “I got your back”. Also Bishonen: *disappears at the critical moment*.
I did not see a consensus to unblock. There was “support” “oppose” and “mu”, which if you google it, turns out to be the correct answer to “when did you stop beating your wife”.
Supposedly Fram was banned for saying “fuck arbcom”, so this also gives the WMF the appearance of supporting community governance structures and protecting arbcom while enforcing a division of powers and saying this particular situation is not in the remit of the arbcom. But this was only the one diff they were able to give Fram, and presumably there were others. This does raise troubling questions about the possibilities of being wrongfully accused and the ability of people to defend themselves against false accusations, but the arbcom also fails this issue. In addition, targets of harassment that speak out publicly have always had to face retaliation.
Wikipediocracy is busy trying to nail Laura Hale. For context see Hale’s curious research from 2014
I don’t think much of posting pictures of people standing next to each other in order to “prove” they are or have been intimate. I have sat a lot closer to Maria Sefidari than that, but fortunately no one took a picture of it. She is not the type of person you feel uncomfortable near, for instance she does not give off a touchy-feely vibe, or anything less than professional. I don’t think such photos are uncommon among the wiki women crowd, or that they say anything other than the women – gay or straight – tend to be very enthusiastic about the Wikiwomen thing. Hale has been mixed up in local wiki-politics before, and on a fairly high level, so again no surprise if she is collaborating with a board member. She was an admin on Wikinews, and one of its least bizarre members, although that is not a particularly high bar. The Spanish thing I am not overly excited about, she translated “su” as “their” instead of “his” or some such typo (a correct translation but not in that context of a male athlete) and got hung out to dry for it. Again, if this was a man, someone would have a quiet talk page discussion and/or correct the translation, but as a solution she ended up finding some native speaker to copyedit her translations, so what exactly is the big deal here Wikipediocrazy? In the absence of any proof, or obvious inside knowledge, this looks like just another “woman obtains a position normally obtained by a man without having a penis, therefore she must have slept with someone to get it” same old, same old smears are always applied to women who are able to eek anything at all out of the system. Vigilant needs to cut back on the caffeine. Seriously, he does have a talent with snark, but really needs to think about whether this type of research needs to be presented in the same NPOV manner as his grudge-match with Sucks.
They are spinning this as the same issue as superprotect, but sorry, that was then, this is now. This is not the c-suite protecting a software group that is not doing its job, i.e releasing software that is not even in a stable beta incarnation. Wikipediocrazies are dragging out this old chestnut when it has nothing to do with the current situation. They still have a hammer, but this does not look anything like a nail. It is not tech problem. How about some thoughtful analysis, instead.
Carrite does indeed have a majestic animal.
Bottom line, the WMF needs to get its hostile, toxic community under control, as well as the destructive “governance” processes that chew up anyone who gets anywhere close to them. The “community”, including arbcom, is still throwing rocks, back in the inner city, and anyone even halfway competent has moved out to the suburbs, wikidata, wikisource, etc. If they are still around at all, that is. Yas, WMF needs to get control of its process, while it still has one.
This is hilarious. A Google search for Clarice Evone Phelps now turns up a non-existent Wikipedia article in the number one position. But guess what’s in the number two position? Everipedia.
This is a travety, because Everipedia has absolutely no standards for what constitutes a “reliable source”. In fact, even some Onion-type satirical remarks I once made here were presented on Everipedia as “true facts”. But this is what the internet has been reduced to, since Wikipedia refuses to provide information about this scientist, who also just happens to be female. The only place you can get information about this by now very visible female scientist is on a vehicle for promoting cryptocurrency. Everipedia has done a nice job, added some ‘fair use’ photos, (which would have Beetstra the Dirk foaming at the mouth if you tried it on en.wiki), and they have even embedded her video.
Also please note that yours truly turns up on the first page of a google search for this person. That is because this Gender Desk is the only place in the internet, outside of the Wayback Machine, that you can read the actual Wikipedia article that was deleted. (See Clarice E. Phelps). Happy to help.
And what is Wikipedia’s brave and noble arbcom doing about this? Surely they are investigating how the admin corps once again allowed Wikipedia’s name to be tarnished in yet another scandal involving the silencing of women?
Don’t hold your breath. The loud mouthed Tony Baloney is their poster child for “respect mah authoritah”. He was the one who cut off discussion of the article when it was recreated and instead of stepping back and letting someone else review the situation, simply deleted it again and even had it salted. If this isn’t Conflict Of Interest, I don’t know what is.
Have they even read WP:Wikipedia:Deletion policy? This is a policy, not a guideline like the WP:GNG or WP:PROF they keep trying to apply to everything.
Do they even know about WP:BEFORE?
Instead of complaining that someone else did their job for them by asking on Twitter for sources, how about they look for the sources themselves like they are supposed to before nominating for deletion.
Just for good measure, maybe they ought to look at WP:SPEEDY, also a policy, not a guideline.
“Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted …”
The Clarice Phelps page was started through Articles for Creation. Is this not just as good as “surviving a deletion discussion”? In many cases it is even more rigorous. So why on earth did anyone, let alone an admin, think it could be speedied?
“Deletion is reversible, but only by administrators, so other deletions occur only after discussion…”
So why is the arbcom going after an admin who reversed this? And did it to prevent embarrassment to the Wikipedia while the matter could be discussed. They have even changed the case name to the name of this admin, which they don’t do unless they intend to crucify someone. Maybe instead they should be going after the admin who wheel warred by deleting it again.
Has the arbcom thought to reinstate the article during the discussion about accepting the case because it was deleted out of process? So that maybe people can look at it and judge for themselves? Are they going to examine the salting of the article title? Obviously not. They are not going to allow that discussion to take place. In spite of the fact that the arbcom is not supposed to make content decisions, they obviously are coming down on the side of not having the article created. Ever. Even if the subject does more notable stuff, or has more information come to light, as has already happened with this subject.
Why? Take a look at who is leading the arbcom pack here: Worm that Turned, the guy who thinks his role in a CratChat is to Supervote, or substitute his judgement for looking at the actual issues the community finds important. The guy who let the now globally-banned DemiUrge1000 (ha, ha “urge for small” eww) roam all over his adoption program for god knows how many years. And we know he is a Manchester apologist, who can be counted on to let misogynists off the hook, again and again. Worm knows what a scientist looks like, and what a scientist looks like includes a heavy dose of Penis.
Here is the page view history for the current Clarice Phelps draft. In the last three days, 1,858 people have looked at this page.
Just for comparison, in the last three days, 154 people have looked at the page for New York Brad.
So Wikipedia can accommodate the people looking for information about Ira, but not Clarice?
Maybe the people who are invoking the Right Great Wrongs essay should spend a little time gazing at their own belly buttons for a change. Because the only “Great Wrong” that is being “righted” here seems to be a nuclear scientist who does not look the way they think a nuclear scientist should look.
In the meantime, who has the only Wikipedia article about Clarice Phelps on the internet? Moi.