Content deleted Content added
→Courtesy notice: haven't woken up enough to use basic grammar. |
→Courtesy notice: ?!? |
||
Line 69:
::::::The complainants were independent or from people who knew each other or were part of the same organization? I’m not buying your explanation. Since all the evidence is public you should post diffs of the wrongdoing. Basically, prove it. I’ve not alleged a conspiracy or wrongdoing. It’s a natural consequence for friends to try to protect each other. That’s not wrong but it has to be accounted for. The appearance is that Fram got crosswise with well connected people so he got whacked with a much stiffer penalty than what would be given for the same transgressions against the hoi polloi. I wish T&S had referred complaints to arbcom initially and that they hadn’t made stupid promises of confidentiality that undermine our tradition of transparency. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Jehochman}}, you linked the users. Others have done the same, leading to a statement over two months ago - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=prev&oldid=901503053&diffmode=source from Raystorm] stating she had nothing to do with the action, no filing, no instruction, no oversight. Now, you can choose to believe that is a lie, but that's [[WP:AGF|how we're meant to behave]] here. Your comments are specifically alleging that she had something to do with it, which casts aspersions on her behaviour. I'm afraid I'm as much in the dark as you as to who the initial complainants are - their emails are redacted. {{pb}} On a related note, I do see it as a shame that less evidence was submitted by the community than I'd hoped. For example, your timelines regarding this case you are referring to included [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=prev&oldid=903724016 a comment that happened in 2018] and the statement {{tq|" The fact that this has to happen should have been the point where Fram was de-sysopped. We failed LauraHale as a community."}} I wonder what's changed in your opinion? If it's simply that the community's evidence is lacking, there was something ''you'' could have done about that. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 06:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Jehochman}}, I confess to be utterly baffled by your shifting stance on this matter. You have expressed totally irreconcilable positions. What has changed since you told me - in stark terms - that I should reverse my resysop of Fram because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=903487653 "The ban is absolutely justified"] based on <u>your own</u> review of the history. <u>Absolutely</u> justified? But now it isn't and Fram is the victim of a WMF plot? How can you possibly explain such a strange ''volte-face''? And if your review of the history then made you conclude that a ban was justified, how can you now criticise T&S/WMF for reaching the same conclusion? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 08:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
* 🍿 [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 23:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
*:I'm sure you're not the only one, there's a stand in the corner. {{Wink}} [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||