Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Vigilant]

When will the board take up the Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici corruption issue?

[lonza leggiera]

The tender in question looks very much to me like it was an unsuccessful one for the contract that the APC eventually let to the University of Queensland's Murray Phillips, as I pointed out here. Thus, the sums of money mentioned in that tender document never went anywhere, because they consisted entirely of vapourcoin which never actually materialised.

Quote truncated. Please see original comment for context. --Jbh

Thank you for spending the time to write up your analysis. It will take some time for me to integrate the information and issues you present. Your idea that the Tender might not have been successful motivated me to take a closer look at WMAU's reports to the Foundation. While I did not find an audit trail, there is some information which may be relevant to this which can be found in WMAU's 2011 Financial report: linkhttps://wikimedia.org.au/w/images/1/1f/ ... Report.pdf[/link]

In the 2010/11 financial year, the chapter ended with a net operating surplus of $192,119.21. This is derived from total revenues of $347,122.48 and total expenses of $155,003.27. Cash reserves on 30 June totaled $204,038.34. ... The vast bulk of revenue came from donations made to the chapter. The vast bulk of these donations were received during the WMF annual fundraising period from 15 November to 15 January

Expenses ... Grants to WMF 127,727.60

In their FY 2010 report linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... #Committee[/link] they were not reporting any financial information.

In their FY 2011/2012 P&L Statement linkhttps://wikimedia.org.au/w/images/a/af/ ... 011-12.pdf[/link] they report donations of $2,680.00 which is close to 130 times less than the previous fiscal year. They spent about $60,000 that year where about half was on international travel.

There was a lot of money in play at WMAU from 2011-2013 and 2013 is when the Linkage grant came out with their 2011 president listed as a principle investigator. …

The acronym PI in the linkage grant documentation does not stand for "principal investigator", but "partner investigator", which is the role the WMAU's John Vandenberg and the APC's Tony Naar should have played in the activities their respective organisations' undertook to fulfil their obligations under the linkage grant. A minor point, perhaps, but I believe the term "principal investigator" is likely to give a misleading impression of the weight of authority these two enjoyed in the linkage grant project relative to those of the two chief investigators.

I expect the precipitous drop in donations to WMAU in 2011-2012 relative to 2010-2011 is closely related to the following item from the 2010-2011 treasurer's report:

It is a source of great disappointment to me that the WMF has unilaterally decided to withdraw from future joint fundraising agreements of this type, as I believe that it is the best and most equitable model to ensure that the goals of the movement are advanced in Australia.

Since writing my previous post, I have stumbled across the following two items relevant to WMAU's contributions to the linkage grant project:

Linkage Grant

For some time, Wikimedia Australia has been engaged in a process with the University of Queensland (UQ) and the Australian Paralympic Committee (APC) to seek funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for a grant in order to tell the history of the Paralympics in Australia in an accessible and free format. During the year, ARC approved this grant request.

While ARC has agreed to fund part of the project, there is still a funding requirement from Wikimedia Australia of approximately $125,000 over three years. As at the time of writing, negotiations are still underway to determine how this will be managed. There are four critical elements for Wikimedia Australia here:

1. Negotiating an ability to withdraw without penalty from the project if funding to cover these significant expenses is not raised. The chapter must not enter into a contract where a failure to receive further funding would leave it in danger of insolvency.
2. It has been suggested that in lieu of cash funding, the chapter could instead provide in-kind support. This is an idea worth exploring, but the nature of that in-kind support must be agreed to before signing any documents so that all parties know where they stand.
3. The ownership and licencing of any outputs from the project, including work that is not directly aligned with Wikimedia. It is my expectation that most if not all outputs should within a relatively short timeframe be released under a Creative Commons licence or similar.
4. The design of the Wikimedia component of the wider project to ensure that its outputs are aligned with wider movement goals, and that the outputs deliver clear value for money to the movement.

The required contracts have not been signed, and there is still the opportunity for the chapter to pull out of this project without financial penalty. It is my recommendation that Wikimedia Australia’s participation in the project should only proceed once all of the above critical issues are unambiguously resolved.

Linkage grant

The linkage grant (as described in the report of my predecessor here), was a three year, six figure project between the University of Queensland, the Australian Paralympic committee and Wikimedia Australia. While the outcomes of the project had benefits for all involved, it was decided after discussion and commentary from the Wikimedia Foundation about the lack of funding, that it was not something we could afford to proceed with. Nevertheless, we remain committed to supporting the efforts of the Australian Paralympic committe and all our partners.

Thus, it would seem that, from 2014 onward, the WMAU played no active role in the linkage grant project. Any further contributions they made to the overall HOPAU project must apparently have been separate from anything to do with the linkage grant.

I am neither an accountant nor have I integrated this into my analytic model. My initial assessment is that this information tends to support the hypothesis that there was a lot of money in play re Paralympic editing.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful analysis.

Edit to add: Right now there is somewhere between $600,000.00 and $710,000.00 depending on if/how the Tender was funded. (~$340K in large and anomalous donations to WMAU plus the ~260K Linkage grant with WMAU listed and their 2010/2011 president listed on the grant report. Depending on whether the $127K grant to WMF included the tender or not and whether it was funded or not there is the potential for another $110K.

--
Jbh

[Randy from Boise]

When will the board take up the Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici corruption issue?

[Poetlister]

and finally, for now, a decision linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Case/Fram[/link]

Dang, I really wish I'd posted that draft post I wrote up 6 weeks ago predicting this exact outcome...

So, just as a purely procedural point, should we abandon this thread and start a new one for the now-inevitable "Fram 2" RfA, or keep using this one and try to get it to 100 pages?

We definitely need a new thread. We don't want to risk the whole site crashing because one thread exceeds the maximum size.

[Earthy Astringent]

So after all of this, does anyone have any diffs of Fram going after Hale or Sefidari? If Fram’s “bad conduct” happened only on wiki, it should be there somewhere.

[Earthy Astringent]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =916653931

Two sides to every story

A fundamental part of dispute resolution on this website is that both sides of a dispute will have their behavior looked at. If I come to a noticeboard complaining that someone is reverting my edits, then of course 3rd parties will examine my edits to see if they should have been reverted or not. I can't come to a noticeboard and say that someone's reversions to my edits make me feel harassed, but you aren't allowed to look at my edits. In effect, this is exactly what Arb has done to Fram. A FoF states that all of the evidence is available on-wiki, yet no arb will point to any of this evidence to support the desysop. Yet the Arbs feel confident to cast aspersions against Fram and say they were hounding and bordering on harassment. From what's available out of the dossier, Fram's actions were 100% correct and supported by the community. In the case of Laura Hale, that user was editing for pay disguised as a Wikipedian in Residence, and widely protected by other editors involved in or supporting the scheme, as well as by an undisclosed personal relationship with someone very senior at the WMF. This has resulted in an unfair process that goes completely against the core policies of transparency and fairness. This Committee has done the community a grave disservice. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

[eagle]

In my opinion, the two people who bear most of the responsibility for Framgate are Laura Hale and María Sefidari (User:Raystorm). Hale has now vanished, but there is the possibility that she will try to return after the dust settles. Sefidari is up for re-election to the WMF Board in the summer of 2020. If this were a traditional Arbcom case, they would have both been named as parties and WP:BOOMERANG would have addressed their undisclosed conflict of interest and disruptive editing.

There has been much said about "Unblockable" editors who have been instrumental in creating a toxic editing environment. Hale and Sefidari fit that description to a T. If the Arbcom is unwilling to address this in the Fram case, should the community consider a community block on both Hale and Sefidari at AN? Absent some action, Sefidari and Hale will claim that they came out of Framgate with a clean bill of editing health.

[ArmasRebane]

Yes, Fram is a prick that should not have tools.

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... al_attacks[/link]

RfB

As has been said before, whether or not that is so, he should be desysopped for what he has done, not for the trumped-up charges presented to T&S.

It's fun to remember that he passed his initial RfA 55/0/0. If it weren't for this case, he'd doubtless have kept the bit indefinitely. Roll on annual re-votes.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram (T-H-L)

There might be 10 of those 55 people still around 12 years later... Fram(2) will be a very close result.

RfB

Unanimous RFAs back in the old days weren't really that hard to come by.

I will be curious about the RFA. Fram has certainly rubbed many people the wrong way that under normal circumstances I'd say he'd have little chance, but I imagine his RfA will, like with the Floq RFA, be treated as a referendum on the community vs. WMF, and that means he'll pass.

[Randy from Boise]

Yes, Fram is a prick that should not have tools.

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... al_attacks[/link]

RfB

As has been said before, whether or not that is so, he should be desysopped for what he has done, not for the trumped-up charges presented to T&S.

It's fun to remember that he passed his initial RfA 55/0/0. If it weren't for this case, he'd doubtless have kept the bit indefinitely. Roll on annual re-votes.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram (T-H-L)

There might be 10 of those 55 people still around 12 years later... Fram(2) will be a very close result.

RfB

Unanimous RFAs back in the old days weren't really that hard to come by.

I will be curious about the RFA. Fram has certainly rubbed many people the wrong way that under normal circumstances I'd say he'd have little chance, but I imagine his RfA will, like with the Floq RFA, be treated as a referendum on the community vs. WMF, and that means he'll pass.

I offered to bet Mr. Big Mouth (aka Crowsfeet at Wikipedia Sucks) £5 to charity on the outcome of the Fram RFA... Crow is soooooooooo sure of his bold and repeated prediction of easy passage that he's not willing to step up to the plate. To be fair, five quid probably represents nearly two hours of him sparechanging at the bus station and he's already putting in 17 hour days doing that — so I understand his unwillingness to put his money where his mouth is...

He's a pussy, but we all knew that.

RfB

[Vigilant]

In my opinion, the two people who bear most of the responsibility for Framgate are Laura Hale and María Sefidari (User:Raystorm). Hale has now vanished, but there is the possibility that she will try to return after the dust settles. Sefidari is up for re-election to the WMF Board in the summer of 2020. If this were a traditional Arbcom case, they would have both been named as parties and WP:BOOMERANG would have addressed their undisclosed conflict of interest and disruptive editing.

There has been much said about "Unblockable" editors who have been instrumental in creating a toxic editing environment. Hale and Sefidari fit that description to a T. If the Arbcom is unwilling to address this in the Fram case, should the community consider a community block on both Hale and Sefidari at AN? Absent some action, Sefidari and Hale will claim that they came out of Framgate with a clean bill of editing health.

Someone should raise a case against them at ARBCOM and let the chips fall where they may.

Trying to get reelected to the Board while indeffed on en.wp would be more difficult.

[MrErnie]

A new RFA for Fram has no chance to pass. He was an active admin for a long time, so no doubt those on the other end of his toolkit will vote no, along with the “civility” warriors like Jorm and Gamaliel, and of course all the Aussies like Nick-D, Hawkeye, and Graham87, and that’s not even mentioning the blind WMF and Arbcom followers...

[musikaman]

A new RFA for Fram has no chance to pass. He was an active admin for a long time, so no doubt those on the other end of his toolkit will vote no, along with the “civility” warriors like Jorm and Gamaliel, and of course all the Aussies like Nick-D, Hawkeye, and Graham87, and that’s not even mentioning the blind WMF and Arbcom followers...

Yeah, but you also have a few people like me hovering around the edges. I have an account, though I don't contribute. From how I'm reading the rules on RFAs, I can vote and plan to.

[Randy from Boise]

A new RFA for Fram has no chance to pass. He was an active admin for a long time, so no doubt those on the other end of his toolkit will vote no, along with the “civility” warriors like Jorm and Gamaliel, and of course all the Aussies like Nick-D, Hawkeye, and Graham87, and that’s not even mentioning the blind WMF and Arbcom followers...

Yeah, but you also have a few people like me hovering around the edges. I have an account, though I don't contribute. From how I'm reading the rules on RFAs, I can vote and plan to.

In case nobody has mentioned it, Welcome to WPO, Musikaman!

RfB

[Poetlister]

A new RFA for Fram has no chance to pass. He was an active admin for a long time, so no doubt those on the other end of his toolkit will vote no, along with the “civility” warriors like Jorm and Gamaliel, and of course all the Aussies like Nick-D, Hawkeye, and Graham87, and that’s not even mentioning the blind WMF and Arbcom followers...

Yeah, but you also have a few people like me hovering around the edges. I have an account, though I don't contribute. From how I'm reading the rules on RFAs, I can vote and plan to.

If you've made very few edits, someone will comment on that and, if the RfA is close, the crats might discount your vote.

[Poetlister]

There has been much said about "Unblockable" editors who have been instrumental in creating a toxic editing environment. Hale and Sefidari fit that description to a T. If the Arbcom is unwilling to address this in the Fram case, should the community consider a community block on both Hale and Sefidari at AN? Absent some action, Sefidari and Hale will claim that they came out of Framgate with a clean bill of editing health.

It would take a lot of courage to start a discussion on that. You'd have to be one of the "Unblockable" editors, or an ex-Arb. But I do hope someone does it. The discussion would be incredible.

[10920]

I have to say that were I an Arbitrator and someone I voted to desysop immediately ran a successful RfA afterwards, I would feel obliged to resign - but that will be a matter for individual Arbitrators if we end up in that territory. WJBscribe (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =917105717

[Osborne]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =916684457

... in cases where arbitrators have voted to desysop an admin or (ahem) voted to maintain a 'desysop' (those following along will know what that means, but best to keep this general), is it left to individual arbitrators (indeed even ex-arbs) on whether to !vote in an RfA run by an editor who asks the community for the bit back, or is there some etiquette where this is best avoided?

Seriously, Carcharoth? That's how you try to keep away opposing voters? Because of "etiquette", because they said explicitly that Fram falls below standards expected from an administrator in an ArbCom case. So they shouldn't say it again, when the actual vote happens...

That would be blatant manipulation of the consensus process. I did not expect that from You.
This and similar underhanded practices show that this debate is not about what's right and fair, but only a wikipolitical agenda.
Introducing bias in this way is not to the benefit of the Encyclopedia.
I presumed you were aware of Wikipedia's wp:Systemic bias (T-H-L), and you wouldn't add to the issue.

[Jbhunley]

The tender in question looks very much to me like it was an unsuccessful one for the contract that the APC eventually let to the University of Queensland's Murray Phillips, as I pointed out here. Thus, the sums of money mentioned in that tender document never went anywhere, because they consisted entirely of vapourcoin which never actually materialised.

Quote truncated. Please see original comment for context. --Jbh

Thank you for spending the time to write up your analysis. It will take some time for me to integrate the information and issues you present. Your idea that the Tender might not have been successful motivated me to take a closer look at WMAU's reports to the Foundation. While I did not find an audit trail, there is some information which may be relevant to this which can be found in WMAU's 2011 Financial report: linkhttps://wikimedia.org.au/w/images/1/1f/ ... Report.pdf[/link]

In the 2010/11 financial year, the chapter ended with a net operating surplus of $192,119.21. This is derived from total revenues of $347,122.48 and total expenses of $155,003.27. Cash reserves on 30 June totaled $204,038.34. ... The vast bulk of revenue came from donations made to the chapter. The vast bulk of these donations were received during the WMF annual fundraising period from 15 November to 15 January

Expenses ... Grants to WMF 127,727.60

In their FY 2010 report linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... #Committee[/link] they were not reporting any financial information.

In their FY 2011/2012 P&L Statement linkhttps://wikimedia.org.au/w/images/a/af/ ... 011-12.pdf[/link] they report donations of $2,680.00 which is close to 130 times less than the previous fiscal year. They spent about $60,000 that year where about half was on international travel.

There was a lot of money in play at WMAU from 2011-2013 and 2013 is when the Linkage grant came out with their 2011 president listed as a principle investigator. …

The acronym PI in the linkage grant documentation does not stand for "principal investigator", but "partner investigator", which is the role the WMAU's John Vandenberg and the APC's Tony Naar should have played in the activities their respective organisations' undertook to fulfil their obligations under the linkage grant. A minor point, perhaps, but I believe the term "principal investigator" is likely to give a misleading impression of the weight of authority these two enjoyed in the linkage grant project relative to those of the two chief investigators.

I expect the precipitous drop in donations to WMAU in 2011-2012 relative to 2010-2011 is closely related to the following item from the 2010-2011 treasurer's report:

It is a source of great disappointment to me that the WMF has unilaterally decided to withdraw from future joint fundraising agreements of this type, as I believe that it is the best and most equitable model to ensure that the goals of the movement are advanced in Australia.

Since writing my previous post, I have stumbled across the following two items relevant to WMAU's contributions to the linkage grant project:

Linkage Grant

For some time, Wikimedia Australia has been engaged in a process with the University of Queensland (UQ) and the Australian Paralympic Committee (APC) to seek funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for a grant in order to tell the history of the Paralympics in Australia in an accessible and free format. During the year, ARC approved this grant request.

While ARC has agreed to fund part of the project, there is still a funding requirement from Wikimedia Australia of approximately $125,000 over three years. As at the time of writing, negotiations are still underway to determine how this will be managed. There are four critical elements for Wikimedia Australia here:

1. Negotiating an ability to withdraw without penalty from the project if funding to cover these significant expenses is not raised. The chapter must not enter into a contract where a failure to receive further funding would leave it in danger of insolvency.
2. It has been suggested that in lieu of cash funding, the chapter could instead provide in-kind support. This is an idea worth exploring, but the nature of that in-kind support must be agreed to before signing any documents so that all parties know where they stand.
3. The ownership and licencing of any outputs from the project, including work that is not directly aligned with Wikimedia. It is my expectation that most if not all outputs should within a relatively short timeframe be released under a Creative Commons licence or similar.
4. The design of the Wikimedia component of the wider project to ensure that its outputs are aligned with wider movement goals, and that the outputs deliver clear value for money to the movement.

The required contracts have not been signed, and there is still the opportunity for the chapter to pull out of this project without financial penalty. It is my recommendation that Wikimedia Australia’s participation in the project should only proceed once all of the above critical issues are unambiguously resolved.

Linkage grant

The linkage grant (as described in the report of my predecessor here), was a three year, six figure project between the University of Queensland, the Australian Paralympic committee and Wikimedia Australia. While the outcomes of the project had benefits for all involved, it was decided after discussion and commentary from the Wikimedia Foundation about the lack of funding, that it was not something we could afford to proceed with. Nevertheless, we remain committed to supporting the efforts of the Australian Paralympic committe and all our partners.

Thus, it would seem that, from 2014 onward, the WMAU played no active role in the linkage grant project. Any further contributions they made to the overall HOPAU project must apparently have been separate from anything to do with the linkage grant.

I am neither an accountant nor have I integrated this into my analytic model. My initial assessment is that this information tends to support the hypothesis that there was a lot of money in play re Paralympic editing.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful analysis.

Edit to add: Right now there is somewhere between $600,000.00 and $710,000.00 depending on if/how the Tender was funded. (~$340K in large and anomalous donations to WMAU plus the ~260K Linkage grant with WMAU listed and their 2010/2011 president listed on the grant report. Depending on whether the $127K grant to WMF included the tender or not and whether it was funded or not there is the potential for another $110K.

--
Jbh

Mr. leggiera;

It appears you are correct on the FY 2011 donations coming from the fundraiser. It was a bitch to validate. The only other country with a large anomaly I could find was Italy w/ ~$358K in their 2010 (fundraiser was at end of 2010) but their 2011 had ~$78K so their anomaly was only a factor of 5x. The WMF page on the fundraiser link showed that only four countries were processing donation payments and AU was not one - this keeps some question open WMAU had ~$11K in PayPal fees that year. Also, it shows Australian donations "direct to WMF" and "donations to chapter or direct to WMF" as being equal for AU but...

There is a link to a preliminary per-country breakout document linkhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... li=1#gid=0[/link] and it shows Total donated to chapter for AU to be $313,624.00 so mystery (at least to me) of where that $340K came from looks solved. There is still about $30K between the two values. Exchange rate will cover some of that. This linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundrai ... undraising[/link] explicitly says WMAU received $343,516.97 and retained AUD$182,050.63.

--
Jbh

[Midsize Jake]

Seriously, Carcharoth? That's how you try to keep away opposing voters? Because of "etiquette", because they said explicitly that Fram falls below standards expected from an administrator in an ArbCom case. So they shouldn't say it again, when the actual vote happens...

I think he's saying that since the Arbcom members saw the WMF's 70-page dossier on Fram and nobody else was allowed to, it might be better if they skipped the RfA so as not to "taint the proceedings."

I take it you don't agree with this reasoning...

[Poetlister]

I have to say that were I an Arbitrator and someone I voted to desysop immediately ran a successful RfA afterwards, I would feel obliged to resign - but that will be a matter for individual Arbitrators if we end up in that territory. WJBscribe (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that that would be right in the present case. The Arbs know a lot more than most people, so it would not be surprising if they held differing views. But of course this makes them experts on Fram, and the community usually distrusts experts. Further, their knowledge is not based on a verifiable source. So all in all they should be good Wikipedians and accept a clear majority verdict, if that is the result.

[Carcharoth]

Seriously, Carcharoth? That's how you try to keep away opposing voters? Because of "etiquette", because they said explicitly that Fram falls below standards expected from an administrator in an ArbCom case. So they shouldn't say it again, when the actual vote happens...

I think he's saying that since the Arbcom members saw the WMF's 70-page dossier on Fram and nobody else was allowed to, it might be better if they skipped the RfA so as not to "taint the proceedings."

I take it you don't agree with this reasoning...

Midsize Jake is right. That, plus why should arbs get to vote once in the case and again in an RfA? Some arbs claim to be able to put arb hats on and take them off and be "community members" again. In this case? Not really possible. That is one of the downsides of being an arb. Arbs who can't accept that should not run for being on the committee.

[lonza leggiera]

…[snip]…

There is a link to a preliminary per-country breakout document linkhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... li=1#gid=0[/link] and it shows Total donated to chapter for AU to be $313,624.00 so mystery (at least to me) of where that $340K came from looks solved. There is still about $30K between the two values. Exchange rate will cover some of that. …
--
Jbh

Probably all of it, in fact,—although it's obviously impossible to know for sure (nice detective work, by the way). Here's the Reserve Bank of Australia's list of historical exchange rates for 2010-2013. For the period January 5-July 1, over which the sum is said by the WMF document as having been paid, the arithmetic mean of the exchange rates was A$1=US$0.8935. At that rate US$313,624.00 would convert to A$351,007. At the maximum exchange rate of A$1=US$0.9341 that occurred during the period, US$313,624.00 would convert to A$335,750.

[Poetlister]

Seriously, Carcharoth? That's how you try to keep away opposing voters? Because of "etiquette", because they said explicitly that Fram falls below standards expected from an administrator in an ArbCom case. So they shouldn't say it again, when the actual vote happens...

I think he's saying that since the Arbcom members saw the WMF's 70-page dossier on Fram and nobody else was allowed to, it might be better if they skipped the RfA so as not to "taint the proceedings."

I take it you don't agree with this reasoning...

Midsize Jake is right. That, plus why should arbs get to vote once in the case and again in an RfA? Some arbs claim to be able to put arb hats on and take them off and be "community members" again. In this case? Not really possible. That is one of the downsides of being an arb. Arbs who can't accept that should not run for being on the committee.

By that logic, if MPs discuss something and agree to have a referendum, as of course recently happened in the UK regarding Brexit, the MPs should not be allowed to vote in the referendum. Arbs are as much members of the community as anyone else.

[Osborne]

Seriously, Carcharoth? That's how you try to keep away opposing voters? Because of "etiquette", because they said explicitly that Fram falls below standards expected from an administrator in an ArbCom case. So they shouldn't say it again, when the actual vote happens...

I think he's saying that since the Arbcom members saw the WMF's 70-page dossier on Fram and nobody else was allowed to, it might be better if they skipped the RfA so as not to "taint the proceedings."
I take it you don't agree with this reasoning...

Midsize Jake is right. That, plus why should arbs get to vote once in the case and again in an RfA? Some arbs claim to be able to put arb hats on and take them off and be "community members" again. In this case? Not really possible. That is one of the downsides of being an arb. Arbs who can't accept that should not run for being on the committee.

The wmf's dossier influences (taints as you say) the arbs' vote on Fram, but they can't disclose anything of it, so its effect is limited to their votes (say 6/300 votes: measly 2%), and obviously won't taint the proceedings.
I wonder if you noticed, the word "taint" includes your judgement, thus biasing the initial question? That would not pass in an RfC, but I don't need to tell you that. Anyway, this is not important to the topic.
The arbs are only regular voters in the RfA, albeit more influential than the average. Influential editors and admins do participate in RfAs. Do they "taint" the proceeding? Depends on whether you agree with their vote. This is how voting works. Do you suggest a better system?

"Why should arbs get to vote once in the case and again in an RfA?"
Are the votes in the case counted in the RfA? No, the RfA is a new chance. That's why that reasoning is a complete non-sequitur.
The RfA is sort of a clean slate (the 70 page dossier is not read by the few hundred voters). Fram is in a much better position, then if for ex. he had to go through the admin re-election process, where the "nominations" start with the negatives, not the positives from his supporters. This would be the standard proceeding on German WP.

From an outside perspective the arbitrators, if they had the power and balls for it, would have taken responsibility for desysoping Fram, and wouldn't have passed the responsibility to the "community", and further extend this debacle. To allow this RfA to a controversial admin, is a great favor, that Fram cannot appreciate. Can you appreciate this chance, despite your disapproval of their non-resysoping?

[Earthy Astringent]

I propose we rename Arbitrator to Taint.

[10920]

Seriously, Carcharoth? That's how you try to keep away opposing voters? Because of "etiquette", because they said explicitly that Fram falls below standards expected from an administrator in an ArbCom case. So they shouldn't say it again, when the actual vote happens...

I think he's saying that since the Arbcom members saw the WMF's 70-page dossier on Fram and nobody else was allowed to, it might be better if they skipped the RfA so as not to "taint the proceedings."

I take it you don't agree with this reasoning...

Midsize Jake is right. That, plus why should arbs get to vote once in the case and again in an RfA? Some arbs claim to be able to put arb hats on and take them off and be "community members" again. In this case? Not really possible. That is one of the downsides of being an arb. Arbs who can't accept that should not run for being on the committee.

By that logic, if MPs discuss something and agree to have a referendum, as of course recently happened in the UK regarding Brexit, the MPs should not be allowed to vote in the referendum. Arbs are as much members of the community as anyone else.

Actually, there was at least one arbitrator who made it clear during 'framgate' that they were not part of the community, most notably BU Rob.

But yes, he has since run off in search of a safe space.

I don't recall if another shared similar sentiments.

Some of the current arbitrators I would not consider to be part of the community since they do virtually nothing other than sit in judgment of the community and its members. How many of them currently edit the encyclopedia?

[10920]

To allow this RfA to a controversial admin, is a great favor, that Fram cannot appreciate. Can you appreciate this chance, despite your disapproval of their non-resysoping?

Wrong. Every desysopping by ArbCom they say the standard garbage about how the admin can regain the tools at RfA, knowing full well the RfA would fail even if it were tried.

It's no favor, let alone a "great favor". Feel free to show me a case where ArbCom attempted to block a future RfA, if one exists.

ArbCom screwed Fram here. They even pretended it wasn't a desysopping.

I propose we rename Arbitrator to Taint.

Seconded.

[Vigilant]

I propose we rename Arbitrator to Taint.

TaintCOM

[MrErnie]

How absolutely clueless is this guy?

* On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for all its hard work on this case. We know both the case and situation were unusual, and we appreciate Arbcom's dedication and approaching this with thought and nuance. We also appreciate Arbcom recognizing that it is permitted to hear and adjudicate private cases when such a case type is necessary.
+
:The Wikimedia Foundation looks forward to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed_decision#Arbcom_RfC_regarding_on-wiki_harassment|coming RFC]] on the topic of "how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future". We also invite community members to participate in the upcoming community consultation on the topic of partial and temporary office actions, which will be launching next Monday on Meta. Best regards --[[User:JEissfeldt (WMF)|Jan (WMF)]] ([[User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF)|talk]]) 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC

Jan this whole mess is almost entirely your fault.

[Osborne]

Every desysopping by ArbCom they say the standard garbage about how the admin can regain the tools at RfA, knowing full well the RfA would fail even if it were tried.

This is quite a unique case, the first where the community vs wmf dynamic is so strong. It's kind of impossible to compare it to any other desysop, other than that you might be right.

How many of them currently edit the encyclopedia?

I thought they don't. One day I checked the contribs, and I was surprised to see they do, though this is unimportant.
A reminder: there were 2 editors voting in Floq rfa 2, after 4 and 2 years of inactivity, and few others after months of inactivity. They are also considered part of the community, just like admins, who do 1 action per year, to retain the bit, and so on... Even blocked users are part of the community, only banned users aren't. See wp:BANBLOCKDIFF (T-H-L).

They even pretended it wasn't a desysopping.

Yes, they try to avoid taking responsibility. This is spineless, as most of the arbitration cases. However, what can they do in a tainted community, that attacks any decision they don't like, and beat it from every angle until it's dead?

Carcharoth might have something more knowledgeable to say?

[10920]

How absolutely clueless is this guy?

* On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for all its hard work on this case. We know both the case and situation were unusual, and we appreciate Arbcom's dedication and approaching this with thought and nuance. We also appreciate Arbcom recognizing that it is permitted to hear and adjudicate private cases when such a case type is necessary.
+
:The Wikimedia Foundation looks forward to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed_decision#Arbcom_RfC_regarding_on-wiki_harassment|coming RFC]] on the topic of "how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future". We also invite community members to participate in the upcoming community consultation on the topic of partial and temporary office actions, which will be launching next Monday on Meta. Best regards --[[User:JEissfeldt (WMF)|Jan (WMF)]] ([[User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF)|talk]]) 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC

Jan this whole mess is almost entirely your fault.

On behalf of Wikipedia and WO, I would like to tell Jan to do something unsavory.

Where is the 'dislike' button on Wikipedia?

[Vigilant]

How absolutely clueless is this guy?

* On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for all its hard work on this case. We know both the case and situation were unusual, and we appreciate Arbcom's dedication and approaching this with thought and nuance. We also appreciate Arbcom recognizing that it is permitted to hear and adjudicate private cases when such a case type is necessary.
+
:The Wikimedia Foundation looks forward to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed_decision#Arbcom_RfC_regarding_on-wiki_harassment|coming RFC]] on the topic of "how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future". We also invite community members to participate in the upcoming community consultation on the topic of partial and temporary office actions, which will be launching next Monday on Meta. Best regards --[[User:JEissfeldt (WMF)|Jan (WMF)]] ([[User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF)|talk]]) 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC

Jan this whole mess is almost entirely your fault.

Someone should start a community desysoping for Jan.

[Vigilant]

Things are getting spicy at FRAM RfA2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... hip/Fram_2

Tyranny vs Freedom is how the framing looks.

Shame of Thrones... Nice

[Beeblebrox]

This is gonna make Floq's RFA look positively calm and orderly....
I don't see how anyone could oppose based on the arbcom case because we literally do not know what he supposedly did, despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

[Osborne]

despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

My first experience on WP was that 10 times more people claim to look at evidence, than how many actually looks. The second experience was that many people look at evidence with eyes clouded by their deeply engraved views and biases. The two together is enough to miss most of the evidence.

[chowbok]

I don't see how anyone could oppose based on the arbcom case because we literally do not know what he supposedly did, despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

Easy. Deference to authority. Ever notice that every time there's a new incident of the police shooting or strangling some poor bastard for no good reason, there are commenters falling over themselves to excuse the cops' behavior, no matter how egregious? The same instinct is in play here. For some people, the idea that authority figures can be wrong is deeply distressing.

[Vigilant]

This is gonna make Floq's RFA look positively calm and orderly....
I don't see how anyone could oppose based on the arbcom case because we literally do not know what he supposedly did, despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

The point that Fram got fucked for holding Laura Hale to account and Maria Sefidari Huici stepped in to protect her wife's money spigot, I think may make things go off the rails.

[10920]

This is gonna make Floq's RFA look positively calm and orderly....
I don't see how anyone could oppose based on the arbcom case because we literally do not know what he supposedly did, despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

Of course people can oppose for that and they will.

Being desysopped for ArbCom means you can lock in 10 opposes for that alone, and most of the opposes will come from people who didn't even read the ArbCom case.

Like I said, there's a reason admins desysopped by ArbCom fail RfAs. The individual cases hardly matter.

In this case, it could pass due to the sheer amount of people who want to support. Normally, there are not enough supporters to outweigh the "X was desysopped by ArbCom" auto-votes.

I would support Fram just for the fact that ArbCom had no grounds to desysop him in the first place. There are many who think the same way, so I'd guess it will get over 300 supports.

Obviously he's pissed off some people, so Megalibelgirl, Gamaliel, and others of that ilk will show up with their cabal. Any bootlickers would need to oppose because "we can't overturn the WMF..."

[Beeblebrox]

This is gonna make Floq's RFA look positively calm and orderly....
I don't see how anyone could oppose based on the arbcom case because we literally do not know what he supposedly did, despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

Of course people can oppose for that and they will.

Being desysopped for ArbCom means you can lock in 10 opposes for that alone, and most of the opposes will come from people who didn't even read the ArbCom case.

Like I said, there's a reason admins desysopped by ArbCom fail RfAs. The individual cases hardly matter.

In this case, it could pass due to the sheer amount of people who want to support. Normally, there are not enough supporters to outweigh the "X was desysopped by ArbCom" auto-votes.

I would support Fram just for the fact that ArbCom had no grounds to desysop him in the first place. There are many who think the same way, so I'd guess it will get over 300 supports.

Obviously he's pissed off some people, so Megalibelgirl, Gamaliel, and others of that ilk will show up with their cabal. Any bootlickers would need to oppose because "we can't overturn the WMF..."

I may have worded that badly. Of course people will oppose for that reason, they'll just be wrong. It's not a supportable position because they don't actually know what he did, but not knowing what you're talking about doesn't stop people on the internet from having strong opinions.

[Osborne]

Easy. Deference to authority. Ever notice that every time there's a new incident of the police shooting or strangling some poor bastard for no good reason, there are commenters falling over themselves to excuse the cops' behavior, no matter how egregious? The same instinct is in play here. For some people, the idea that authority figures can be wrong is deeply distressing.

Well said. That's a significant factor in disputes.

I would support Fram just for the fact that ArbCom had no grounds to desysop him in the first place. There are many who think the same way, so I'd guess it will get over 300 supports.

That's not a fact, but many believe it. Mostly the admin clique and closely related editors.

Obviously he's pissed off some people, so Megalibelgirl, Gamaliel, and others of that ilk will show up with their cabal. Any bootlickers would need to oppose because "we can't overturn the WMF..."

And then there are those who looked at his history, and wp:admincond, and saw that the two doesn't match. Not because of the wmf. The wmf is complicit too.

[Vigilant]

I'm about as far as you can get from the 'admin clique'.

Fram got fucked over because he stopped Laura Hale's paid COI editing and ran afoul of Maria Sefidari Huici's backdoor play through Trust and Safety.

No other admin would ever have been taken like that.
No other admin would have been desysoped for what Fram has done.
No ARBCOM case would even have been opened for what Fram was accused of, which is why Laura and Maria went through the WMF.


Osborne, please point to another case with similar evidence against an admin where a desysoping was successful or even brought.
Shit or get off the pot.

[Randy from Boise]

Fram got fucked over because he stopped Laura Hale's paid COI editing and ran afoul of Maria Sefidari Huici's backdoor play through Trust and Safety.

I just don't think you can accept that the volition here came from Ms. Sefidari without evidence. I think the alternative scenario, that LH had her own friends in high places, and that Fram had enemies in high places, makes total sense here. We do know that T&S advertised their new superpowers to groups of theoretically-highly-oppressed-and-cowed Wikipedians, such as LGBT. LH would have seen this notification independently of her spouse — and being a veteran power player for years would have logically followed through trying to take out her enemy completely independently of her spouse.

If Sefidari was complicit, you need to prove it. So far I have seen zero evidence that this was the case; which obviously is not to say that I think she's swell or that she does not need to go away, because I don't and she does.

RfB

[Vigilant]

Fram got fucked over because he stopped Laura Hale's paid COI editing and ran afoul of Maria Sefidari Huici's backdoor play through Trust and Safety.

I just don't think you can accept that the volition here came from Ms. Sefidari without evidence. I think the alternative scenario, that LH had her own friends in high places, and that Fram had enemies in high places, makes total sense here. We do know that T&S advertised their new superpowers to groups of theoretically-highly-oppressed-and-cowed Wikipedians, such as LGBT. LH would have seen this notification independently of her spouse — and being a veteran power player for years would have logically followed through trying to take out her enemy completely independently of her spouse.

If Sefidari was complicit, you need to prove it. So far I have seen zero evidence that this was the case; which obviously is not to say that I think she's swell or that she does not need to go away, because I don't and she does.

RfB

The standard here is not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; it's "preponderance of the evidence".

There is no other explanation that makes more sense than the one I put forward.
Yours is possible, but much less likely, given how aggressively Laura Hale has historically used her allies.

The burden of proof should and does lie with Maria Sefidari Huici to prove to the rest of the Board and en.wp that she followed all Conflict Of Interest best practices in regards to Laura Hale.

I strongly suspect that Maria Sefidari Huici cannot and will not make that case.

[Vigilant]

Brandon Harris, ever the skeevy fuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... t#Courage.

Courage.

I'm very proud to know you. I want you to know that. Courage thy shield, compassion thy sword. --Jorm (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Dropped at the start of the Fram debacle.
Applauding the WMF T&S for what turns out to be a massive overreach and conflict of interest scandal.

Are you ever right, Brandon? Ever?

P.S. Any time. Drop me a line. You fawning coward.

[Osborne]

No other admin would ever have been taken like that.
No other admin would have been desysoped for what Fram has done.
No ARBCOM case would even have been opened for what Fram was accused of, which is why Laura and Maria went through the WMF.
Osborne, please point to another case with similar evidence against an admin where a desysoping was successful or even brought.

I already told you, - and I don't see a need to repeat myself too many times -, that it's only the subculture of wikipedia, where Fram's behavior - that I saw in the public evidence, and related diffs - is acceptable.
I'm used to professional settings, where "accountability" and "code of conduct" has a meaning, with positive associations.

I do agree, that in the last decade, similar conduct was generally accepted from admins, and without the wmf's push, probably Fram would have dodged this. He dodged it in 3 rejected AC cases already.
That is to say that both the community and the wmf are at fault in letting the culture diminish to this level.

Regarding the "no other admin" premise: there's always a first. It comes with fame as a compensation.

[Vigilant]

No other admin would ever have been taken like that.
No other admin would have been desysoped for what Fram has done.
No ARBCOM case would even have been opened for what Fram was accused of, which is why Laura and Maria went through the WMF.
Osborne, please point to another case with similar evidence against an admin where a desysoping was successful or even brought.

I already told you, - and I don't see a need to repeat myself too many times -, that it's only the subculture of wikipedia, where Fram's behavior - that I saw in the public evidence, and related diffs - is acceptable.
I'm used to professional settings, where "accountability" and "code of conduct" has a meaning, with positive associations.

I do agree, that in the last decade, similar conduct was generally accepted from admins, and without the wmf's push, probably Fram would have dodged this. He dodged it in 3 rejected AC cases already.
That is to say that both the community and the wmf are at fault in letting the culture diminish to this level.

Regarding the "no other admin" premise: there's always a first. It comes with fame as a compensation.

Thank you for replying.
Would that en.wp enforced rules fairly. I'm with you there.

There's a reason that Ex_post_facto_law (T-H-L) exists as a central tenet in jurisprudence.

it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

You don't change the rules on the fly and then convict someone under the new rules.
If you do that, you're violating fundamental fairness.


Do you really suppose that WP:ADMINCOND was the actual reason that WMF T&S entered the fray, especially going in heavy like that?

Or do you suppose that it's more likely that Laura Hale's connections had a stronger role to play than WP:ADMINCOND?

Given what I've dug up and posted here, I would emphatically say that Laura Hale was the sole reason for this action and that all other concerns were used for masking, poorly, her involvement.

When a plaintiff, like Laura Hale, comes to a proceeding with filthy hands, the only equitable decision is to refuse to convict the defendant.

[Osborne]

Do you really suppose that WP:ADMINCOND was the actual reason that WMF T&S entered the fray, especially going in heavy like that?

No, I said nothing about the wmf's reasons. That's a very detached interpretation of what I wrote.
I think what you theorize to be the reason, or similar reasons likely played a strong role, possibly the role.
The unequal policing by wmf is also a problem, a different problem.
However my focus is admin accountability, not how this case came to be. ArbCom should have done this case years before.

Given what I've dug up and posted here, I would emphatically say that Laura Hale was the sole reason for this action and that all other concerns were used for masking, poorly, her involvement.

Possible. That's how life works, not only at Wikipedia. Your message came through the first time, and I heard it a few dozen times since then.
I just don't believe digging up and throwing dirt would prevent the next sanfranban. Even if you manage to boot somebody, there will be another person to take their place, who can become your next enemy.
Therefore I rather focus my time and energy on the question how to make the sanctioning proceedings more transparent and accountable, than it was in the case of Fram, so this debacle won't repeat.

[Jbhunley]

Fram got fucked over because he stopped Laura Hale's paid COI editing and ran afoul of Maria Sefidari Huici's backdoor play through Trust and Safety.

I just don't think you can accept that the volition here came from Ms. Sefidari without evidence. I think the alternative scenario, that LH had her own friends in high places, and that Fram had enemies in high places, makes total sense here. We do know that T&S advertised their new superpowers to groups of theoretically-highly-oppressed-and-cowed Wikipedians, such as LGBT. LH would have seen this notification independently of her spouse — and being a veteran power player for years would have logically followed through trying to take out her enemy completely independently of her spouse.

If Sefidari was complicit, you need to prove it. So far I have seen zero evidence that this was the case; which obviously is not to say that I think she's swell or that she does not need to go away, because I don't and she does.

RfB

There is some evidence albeit circumstantial. If you look at LH's talk page you will see she has posted on it a total of four times between Jan 2014 and Oct 2016. All were immediatly after Fram posted of relating to posts by Fram.
The first was her volunteering to help LH out with her Spanish translations to avoid LH being banned from using Spanish language sources.

can do it. It's one of the most impressive efforts I have ever seen in Wikipedia, and it deserves full cooperation. Laura, just ping me when you need me to check something. Cheers. Raystormlinkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... ode=source[/link]

This is interesting because at the time LH was with MS in Spain and the two were applying for a grant to go cover a IPC 2013 Alpine Ski Championships in La Molina. The grant application linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... _La_Molina[/link and its discussion page linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_ ... _La_Molina[/link] tell us many things. Including

• LH is in Spain at the time of the ANI to ban her from using Spanish language sources.
• That LH is in Spain to meed with the Spanish Paralympic Committee to pitch being a WiR (which would fail if she could not write articles using Spanish language source)
• MS and LH want to get media accreditation to go to Sochi 2014
• MS intends to seek have WM Ukraine seek funding to send people to cover Sochi 2014 Wikinews

This leads to the discussion page of WM Ukraine's request for Sochi 2014. linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... id=7815354[/link] Neither LH nor MS are beneficiaries but there is an interesting exchange between a funding reviewer and MS

We approve this grant request and applaud your efforts to increase coverage of Paralympic and disabled athletes on Wikipedia Projects.

Please note that we are not interested in supporting the development of content for Wikinews because we do not consider it to be impactful. This grant will be evaluated based on content contribution to Commons and Wikipedia only. It is fine for you to include Wikinews activity in your trip to Sochi, but those contributions should not be included in your measures of success.

I don't think Wikinews has no impact. I think the expectations outside its communities are very unclear, which is what leads to the lack of support and understanding. I still don't understand why the funding of this request, despite being successful, demanded to drop the Wikinews measures of success. That's active discouragement to contribute content in said project. As such, it bothers me. We should encourage people, not discourage them. But if Board guidance is needed to be applied to all projects, I'm sure that can be arranged.(emp.mine - Jbh) Thank you. Raystorm

Considering how involved both her and LH were in Wikinews and how they both had grants which Wikinews was a major 'measure of success' makes me believe she would not be above using her position on the board for a bit of elbow bending for personal reasons. If she is willing to that far in public I do not expect she would be more restrained in private or via back channel.

The last on Oct 5 2016 was

You need to stop this behavior at once. That you are now going through her userspace and deleting drafts without any sort of due process, debate or even second opinions from people who are not as obviously biased against her as you are is unacceptable. That you even think you have a right to continually harass a user is even worse. You have lost all perspective in this obsession of yours with her edits, and you need to step away now. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... ode=source[/link]

Personally I would consider the "if Board guidance is needed to be applied to all projects, I'm sure that can be arranged" when relating to matters where both one and one's wife have not only a deep personal stake but a financial one as well to be right over the line. My opinion is someone willing to do such a thing once in public much more likely than not to be willing to do the same or more behind closed doors.

Not enough to call it corruption or malfeasance but by my values and in my opinion it is pretty unethical. Particularly when coupled with other cases of jumping to the defense of LH while not only avoiding mention of the COI but, from the limited interactions I have seen, carrying on on-wiki like they were complete strangers.

I have a pretty good argument that LH was the linchpin of the FRAMBAN as well. Combine the two and there is a strong inference to be made in support of Vigilant statements.
--
Jbh

[10920]

If Fram wants tools, he needs to stand for a new RFA. I would bet pretty heavily against him passing — which further illustrates the truth of the "lost the confidence of the community" over temperament thesis.

That's because the bar for passing RfA is high.

If every active admin were made to stand for a new RfA, at least half of them wouldn't pass.

Inertia rules. As I've said before, there's no consensus to remove the tools, and there usually won't be consensus to restore either...

They did not have grounds to desysop. As the editor kept demanding, where are the 2019 diffs from ArbCom to justify this?

[tarantino]

I don't see how anyone could oppose based on the arbcom case because we literally do not know what he supposedly did, despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

Easy. Deference to authority. Ever notice that every time there's a new incident of the police shooting or strangling some poor bastard for no good reason, there are commenters falling over themselves to excuse the cops' behavior, no matter how egregious? The same instinct is in play here. For some people, the idea that authority figures can be wrong is deeply distressing.

Welcome, chowbok.

Wow, you've been editing wp for fifteen years and 83 percent of those edits are to mainspace. That's pretty impressive, or sad, depending on one's perspective.