James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:25 pm

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... l[quote]On Dec 28th 2015 I was removed from the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Many thanks to all those who gave me their support during the last
election. I have worked in the last six month to honor the trust placed in
me by advocating for our values, communities, and projects.

Sincerely
James Heilman[/quote]

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:29 pm

"Removed from". Whoa.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:32 pm

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80479.html

Dear all,

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of the
Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
immediately.

This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a
responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation to
ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective
governance. Following serious consideration, the Board felt this removal
decision was a necessary step at this time. The resolution will be
published shortly.

This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... /Committee>
to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
steps.

Patricio Lorente

Chair, Board of Trustees

Wikimedia Foundation

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:34 pm

Vague statement of the WMF Board:

On Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 23:29:15 UTC 2015, WMF Board Chair Patricio Lorente wrote:
Dear all,

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of the Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective immediately.

This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation to ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective governance. Following serious consideration, the Board felt this removal decision was a necessary step at this time. The resolution will be published shortly.

This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... /Committee> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next steps.

Patricio Lorente

Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation

link https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80479.html[/link]

Sounds like a dissident got crushed.

If there's an election, I'm running...

RfB

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:38 pm

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Re ... an_Removal

Approved by the Board of Trustees on December 28, 2015.

Resolved, James Heilman is removed from the Board of Trustees, fully ending his term in office and appointment as a member or liaison for any Board committees.
References
Bylaws, Article IV § 7
James Heilman appointment 2015

Approved
Patricio Lorente, Alice Wiegand, Frieda Brioschi, Jimmy Wales, Stu West, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Guy Kawasaki, Denny Vrandečić,

Oppose
Dariusz Jemielniak, James Heilman

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:39 pm

I've reached out to Dr. Heilman and asked him to comment here.

tim

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:43 pm

I remember back in late March 2015, Heilman was contemplating interfering with other people's livelihoods, by "reporting" them to sites like Elance and Fiverr. I doubt that had anything to do with his dismissal from the WMF board, but it did showcase for me how much Heilman imagined himself some sort of "volunteer police officer" when it came to Wikipedia, which is rather idiotic.

I wonder who will be the first to scramble together a comment to the mailing list? Oh, heavens... I should have known.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:52 pm

thekohser wrote:I remember back in late March 2015, Heilman was contemplating interfering with other people's livelihoods, by "reporting" them to sites like Elance and Fiverr. I doubt that had anything to do with his dismissal from the WMF board, but it did showcase for me how much Heilman imagined himself some sort of "volunteer police officer" when it came to Wikipedia, which is rather idiotic.

I wonder who will be the first to scramble together a comment to the mailing list? Oh, heavens... I should have known.

Where there's drama, there's Kevin.......

RfB

P.S. I wonder if this means he's back from his internet-free holiday month visit to the uninhabited hinterlands or whatever it was that required a postponement of his ArbCom case...

Guerillero · Unread post by **Guerillero** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:55 pm

I'm waiting for an email from the board that uses our favorite piece of California newspeak, "culture fit".

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:05 am

I suppose the 'community' could always select Heilman again. For lulz.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:07 am

Salient:

SlimVirgin wrote:
Pete Forsyth wrote: With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history.

Any explanation of the reasons should be commensurate, in my view, to the points outlined above.

James was elected
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... 15/Results>
by 1,857 people

and removed by eight. I hope an explanation is forthcoming very soon.

Biblio · Unread post by **Biblio** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:59 am

SlimVirgin wrote: James was elected
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... 15/Results>
by 1,857 people

and removed by eight. I hope an explanation is forthcoming very soon.

I couldn't think of any better way to summarize this whole affair.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:08 am

The Doc is out

James Heilman jmh649 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 29 01:39:35 UTC 2015

As Patricio stated the "Board has a responsibility to ... ensure that the
Board functions with *mutual confidence*"

My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me to justify my
removal. No reason beyond that is needed per our board by laws.

There was not any COI or legal impropriety on my part. I have done what I
believe is in the best interest of our movement. I hope Patricio and I can
work together to provide greater explanation in the coming days.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80502.html

It's time for your nap now

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:33 am

Nothing says transparency and openness more than the unexplained removal of a board member from a major 501c3.

You guys couldn't have done more to undermine confidence in the WMF's governance had you sat down and tried to work it out in advance.

Bra-vo!

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:45 am

Vote him in again and send them a big F.U.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:37 am

Earthy Astringent wrote:Vote him in again and send them a big F.U.

That would be funny. It also says quite a lot that they vote out the only (as far as I know) member of the board with a Doctoral degree.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:13 am

The fact that he would feel it necessary to declare that "there was not any COI or legal impropriety on [his] part" suggests to me that the incident(s) leading to his removal would, most likely, lead some people to assume there was some COI or legal impropriety involved.

I see no reason not to take him at his word, but regardless, Heilman, aka User:Doc James (T-C-L), is best known for being quite outspoken on the subject of pharmaceutical companies and their efforts to influence various Wikipedia drug-related articles in their favor. As everyone knows, pharmaceutical companies are extremely litigious (not to mention their having just about the deepest pockets imaginable). If I had to guess, this action probably has something to do with that - it's conceivable that Heilman tried to use his position on the WMF board to intimidate a pharma company into backing off on some activity he deemed objectionable, and after reading the inevitable C&D letter that would have resulted, the rest of the WMF board didn't think that was such a good thing for him to be doing.

Again, this is pure guesswork on my part and should not be used as the basis for an actual cash wager or any sort of formal odds-making activity.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:12 am

Kumioko wrote:they vote out the only (as far as I know) member of the board with a Doctoral degree.

A medical doctor is a professional degree, like a law degree, which does not require or involve research (apart from joint M.D./Ph.D.).

In the U.S., medical doctors in have had scientific courses on the level of B.S.E. or B.S. courses, and they usually are smart.
In Sweden, medical students have had straight A's in gymnasium, so they are quite smart (and good at short-term memorization).

Doc James has been discussed before, and I don't trust him.

Wikipedia's violations of copyright owned by Springer-Verlag?

Has Wikipedia ever[CENSORED] violated the copyrights owned by Springer Verlag, Birkhauser, etc.? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 22:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure we have for brief periods of time. But we have no generated profit from it. --Doc James (T-C-L) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No "buts", please. Amateur copyright theft does not seem to get special treatment in law, and Wikipedia's copyright violations should not be pooh-poohed. I would suggest less self-righteousness in discussing Wikipedia and the firm of Julius Springer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ial_report

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Here's the view of someone who seems to be a medical doctor, Doc James (Jmh649 (T-C-L)).
Doc James: oppose medical disclaimer

I do not see a medical disclaimer as needed:

1. Many other sites have content worse than that of Wikipedia and do not contain a warning.
2. A disclaimer will clutter the top of the article (how will this mesh with the new text messaging option for getting access to Wikipedia content?).
3. The warning is already at the end of the article.
4. There are mistakes in other sites including the Lancet and the Mayo Clinic (which people expect to be accurate).
5. People do not expect Wikipedia to be accurate. I have asked many students if they use Wikipedia and all respond with hesitance as they have all heard from profs how bad it is.
6. If these notices drive away editors and have no effect on readership / usage then it could potentially result in overall harm.
Would you want to be treated by him? Point 5 totally misses the issue; we hope that most doctors would know better [than] to rely on Wikipedia; it's the ignorant self-diagnosing public who will come off worst.
In Canada, the medical degree is an undergraduate degree, often a second degree, according to Wikipedia (!).

Medical doctors are trained in a professional program, like engineers and accountants. They do not have training in research, and many of them lack the intellectual virtues developed in the course of earning a doctorate in a scientific discipline.

In the U.S., following the AMA's implementation of recommendations from the Flexner report, a baccalaureate degree (with substantial laboratory science courses) has been required for admission to medical school (apart from a small number of 6 year medical programs, e.g. Inteflex at U. Michigan, which requires liberal-arts courses). In other countries, students enter medical school after having excelled in high school/gymnasium, but without the intellectual maturity of a college graduate.

(C.f., Kant's essay on the "Contest of Faculties". Medicine belongs to the lower faculties....)

DHeyward · Unread post by **DHeyward** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:55 am

Midsize Jake wrote:The fact that he would feel it necessary to declare that "there was not any COI or legal impropriety on [his] part" suggests to me that the incident(s) leading to his removal would, most likely, lead some people to assume there was some COI or legal impropriety involved.

I see no reason not to take him at his word, but regardless, Heilman, aka User:Doc James (T-C-L), is best known for being quite outspoken on the subject of pharmaceutical companies and their efforts to influence various Wikipedia drug-related articles in their favor. As everyone knows, pharmaceutical companies are extremely litigious (not to mention their having just about the deepest pockets imaginable). If I had to guess, this action probably has something to do with that - it's conceivable that Heilman tried to use his position on the WMF board to intimidate a pharma company into backing off on some activity he deemed objectionable, and after reading the inevitable C&D letter that would have resulted, the rest of the WMF board didn't think that was such a good thing for him to be doing.

Again, this is pure guesswork on my part and should not be used as the basis for an actual cash wager or any sort of formal odds-making activity.

Usually, unexpected/sudden removals are associated with wrongdoing so it's not surprising he clarified that those weren't the reason. i'd be inclined to agree with him at this point as Boards would not remove without an investigation and we would, quite frankly, have heard about a decision to investigate malfeasance of any sort. The Board wouldn't allege and investigate wrongdoing by themselves and, short of an arrest, indictment or conviction, would not remove immediately for an allegation.

Since there was no such investigative announcement, I think it's more simple. I don't think the WMF is as en-wp centric as this trustee. e.g. a number of recent arbcom candidates talked about getting grants for professional assistance with dispute resolution and harassment on en.wp. I don't know the exact makeup of WMF trustees but a clash of priorities (such as solving 1st world en-wp problems vs. 3rd world global problems outside the bubble) seems more likely. If it was anything with legal ramifications, it would have been the announcement of hiring an outside firm to investigate and make recommendations.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:18 am

Kumioko wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Vote him in again and send them a big F.U.
That would be funny. It also says quite a lot that they vote out the only (as far as I know) member of the board with a Doctoral degree.

Or we could put up someone from here. Greg has experience and could do some coaching.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:01 pm

James's brain-child meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med is incorporated in New York State as a non-profit charityspecifically as a 501(c)(3) organization (T-H-L), which so is barred from many political activities (c.f., 501(c)(3) organization#Lobbying (T-H-L)). Nonethless, it lobbies governments:

This organization takes positions on issues, makes specific recommendations on best practices for sharing health information, sometimes asks organizations to do certain things, and may ask governments to adopt certain stances.

It does its own fund-raising, disbursements, and contractual relations with partner organizations

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:44 pm

Jimbo has cleared up why there hasn't been a more detailed explanation of the removal.

It's all Heilman's fault.

...this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say. -- Der Jimbo

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:52 pm

Good choice of avatar, KW!

Moral Hazard wrote: Doc James has been discussed before, and I don't trust him.

Doc James: oppose medical disclaimer

I do not see a medical disclaimer as needed:

1. Many other sites have content worse than that of Wikipedia and do not contain a warning.
2. A disclaimer will clutter the top of the article (how will this mesh with the new text messaging option for getting access to Wikipedia content?).
3. The warning is already at the end of the article.
4. There are mistakes in other sites including the Lancet and the Mayo Clinic (which people expect to be accurate).
5. People do not expect Wikipedia to be accurate. I have asked many students if they use Wikipedia and all respond with hesitance as they have all heard from profs how bad it is.
6. If these notices drive away editors and have no effect on readership / usage then it could potentially result in overall harm.

Yes, that pretty much irrevocably damaged my trust in him, as well. Atrocious reasoning on all points.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:54 pm

thekohser wrote:Jimbo has cleared up why there hasn't been a more detailed explanation of the removal.

It's all Heilman's fault.

Huh.

Jimbo Wales wrote: ...to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions.

Translation: we need time to get our story straight in order to cover our asses.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:50 pm

Doc James wrote:Doc James: oppose medical disclaimer
I do not see a medical disclaimer as needed:

1. Many other sites have content worse than that of Wikipedia and do not contain a warning.
2. A disclaimer will clutter the top of the article (how will this mesh with the new text messaging option for getting access to Wikipedia content?).
3. The warning is already at the end of the article.
4. There are mistakes in other sites including the Lancet and the Mayo Clinic (which people expect to be accurate).
5. People do not expect Wikipedia to be accurate. I have asked many students if they use Wikipedia and all respond with hesitance as they have all heard from profs how bad it is.
6. If these notices drive away editors and have no effect on readership / usage then it could potentially result in overall harm.

James is as terrible a categorizer as the Chinese encyclopediast of Borges who was quoted at the beginning of Michel Foucault's Les mots et les choses / The Order of things.

The list divides all animals into one of 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies
Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge (T-H-L)

Doc James's first protector, Kevin Gorman (T-C-L), wrote Wikipedia's article on Immunoglobulin therapy (T-H-L) while complaining about impaired cognition following sepsis.

Parents:
Tell your children not to pop their pimples! Blood from the face flows to the brain.
A colleague of my mother got an (essentially incurable) flesh-eating bacterial infection, likely because she had a pimple on her butt.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:28 pm

Hex wrote:
thekohser wrote:Jimbo has cleared up why there hasn't been a more detailed explanation of the removal.

It's all Heilman's fault.
Huh.
Jimbo Wales wrote: ...to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions.
Translation: we need time to get our story straight in order to cover our asses.

That's how I interpreted that too. I think this has a very real chance of exploding in the WMF's face.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:52 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:The fact that he would feel it necessary to declare that "there was not any COI or legal impropriety on [his] part" suggests to me that the incident(s) leading to his removal would, most likely, lead some people to assume there was some COI or legal impropriety involved.

I see no reason not to take him at his word, but regardless, Heilman, aka User:Doc James (T-C-L), is best known for being quite outspoken on the subject of pharmaceutical companies and their efforts to influence various Wikipedia drug-related articles in their favor. As everyone knows, pharmaceutical companies are extremely litigious (not to mention their having just about the deepest pockets imaginable). If I had to guess, this action probably has something to do with that - it's conceivable that Heilman tried to use his position on the WMF board to intimidate a pharma company into backing off on some activity he deemed objectionable, and after reading the inevitable C&D letter that would have resulted, the rest of the WMF board didn't think that was such a good thing for him to be doing.

Again, this is pure guesswork on my part and should not be used as the basis for an actual cash wager or any sort of formal odds-making activity.

Reminded me of this clip.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:54 pm

lilburne wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Vote him in again and send them a big F.U.
That would be funny. It also says quite a lot that they vote out the only (as far as I know) member of the board with a Doctoral degree.
Or we could put up someone from here. Greg has experience and could do some coaching.

I think I'd make an excellent board member.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:59 pm

Here's an interesting post on the mailing list.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80530.html

The relevant bits

The Florida statute(
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other
organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
or grouping.

Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
place given the action of the board why are they also determining the next
steps in the replacing our representative.

I wonder if WMF legal is about to have their hands full...

This could lead to hilariously awkward board meetings if Heilman is forcibly reinstated by state law.

greybeard · Unread post by **greybeard** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:14 pm

It's really amateur half-hour to handle something like this. it is straightforward, on any Board, to sideline a member without actually removing him/her. You strip them of committee assignments, appoint an Executive Committee of everyone else except the sidelined member, and then hold perfunctory full Board meetings, ratifying the actions of the EC and any other committees. The full Board meeting can then be accomplished in about 1/2 hour.

That they decided to eject a community board member before the end of his term is hilariously inappropriate and unnecessary. However, don't expect an explanation from the WMF -- to do so could expose them to litigation if Dr. Heilman were so inclined.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:32 pm

Doc James (T-C-L) / James Heilman (T-H-L)'s outing of editors and his negative editing of articles, e.g., biasing articles about Medtronic products was discussed by The Atlantic Monthly.

Joe Pinsker (The Atlantic) wrote:"James Heilman thought more about the attempted edit to the page for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, he grew curious about who might be trying to write over the controversy of the procedures, so he Googled the would-be editor’s Wikipedia username. Sifting through the results, he saw that a man named Kim Schelble had an email address that contained the same nickname. Schelble, Heilman found, was employed by Medtronic, a company that sells medical devices used for, among other things, kyphoplasties."

The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay: Can the site’s dwindling ranks of volunteer editors protect its articles from the influence of money? Joe Pinsker Aug 11, 2015
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ay/393926/

Medtronic is one of my favorite companies. They made the IV-nutrition pump that extended my mother's life 6 months. They also were collaborating with Swedish control-theorists to develop a real-time alarm system, so parents would not have to worry that their kid would die from diabetes during the night (and adults with diabetes would not feel a need to eat a meal just before sleeping only to reduce the risk of dying asleep).

Heilman and many other Wikipedians seem to adhere to the 1875 Gotha Programme: The state is pure and should solve all problems, while private firms taint everything they touch. Policies like NPOV and RS (as well as prohibitions against "opposition research" and outing) are ignored, and articles are biased against their subjects. (Similarly, BLP articles, particularly about politicians, are often overly negative.)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:32 pm

If he did stand and were re-elected, that would be a vote of no confidence in the eight trustees who voted to dismiss him. Would their position be tenable?

auriental · Unread post by **auriental** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:41 pm

Vigilant wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Vote him in again and send them a big F.U.
That would be funny. It also says quite a lot that they vote out the only (as far as I know) member of the board with a Doctoral degree.
Or we could put up someone from here. Greg has experience and could do some coaching.
I think I'd make an excellent board member.

As much fun as either alternative might be, speaking entirely for myself I don't dislike either of you enough to submit you to such an indignity.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:12 pm

Poetlister wrote:If he did stand and were re-elected, that would be a vote of no confidence in the eight trustees who voted to dismiss him. Would their position be tenable?

They have no shame.
It would be just slightly more awkward that it is already.

Think Thanksgiving with the newly 'out' nephew.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:21 pm

Perfect timing!

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80563.html

Anybody want to bet that the two new board members are "go along, get along" type of appointments?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:24 pm

Here's an interesting email on the list.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80566.html

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:28 pm

auriental wrote: As much fun as either alternative might be, speaking entirely for myself I don't dislike either of you enough to submit you to such an indignity.

Yes but I dislike almost everyone else enough to inflict Vigilant on them...

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:15 am

So, what I'm piecing together from all this is that Heilman was ejected because he objected to sub rosa editing of medical topics by representatives of the pharmaceutical, surgical supply, and medical device industries, in a manner that the Board found objectionable. Just how much money did the WMF receive in donations from the pharmaceutical, surgical supply, and medical device industries in the past five years?

This seems like a topic ripe for some seriously bad PR for Wikipedia.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:56 am

Kelly Martin wrote:So, what I'm piecing together from all this is that Heilman was ejected because he objected to sub rosa editing of medical topics by representatives of the pharmaceutical, surgical supply, and medical device industries, in a manner that the Board found objectionable. Just how much money did the WMF receive in donations from the pharmaceutical, surgical supply, and medical device industries in the past five years?

This seems like a topic ripe for some seriously bad PR for Wikipedia.

I'm not sure what we can say the cause was. The anti-paid editing zealot Smallbones (T-H-L) is the #1 flag-bearer in Dr. Heilman's army, but it doesn't necessarily follow that differences over WMF-set Terms Of Service regarding paid editing was necessarily the cause of the purge. JW has indicated that a statement is forthcoming, which we all know means very little in terms of what will actually follow.

I suppose that what we need is one of the Trustees to leak information. Go ahead and PM me on this site, I am discreet...

Dr. Heilman also needs to make his statement — here, there, or anywhere.

This is a disturbing precedent in which the clique has purged an elected board member and we really must keep up a drumbeat for more information.

RfB

Liz99 · Unread post by **Liz99** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 1:56 am

I think that once the Board has worked out a statement with Legal, their explanation can be debated, dissected, defended or refuted. Right now, the only folks who know what happened at this meeting aren't talking and all we can do is speculate.

I'm surprised at how definitive this action was. This makes me think either a) this was an emergency measure or b) there have been problems for a while that the Board tried to resolve through dialogue and discussion which were unsuccessful and which we were unaware of that led to this action. The statement that "This was not a decision the Board took lightly" makes me think it is the latter.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:37 am

The mainstream media has weighed in on the matter.

Gold stars to any WPO regulars who leave a comment on that story.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 3:52 am

thekohser wrote:The mainstream media has weighed in on the matter.

Gold stars to any WPO regulars who leave a comment on that story.

You have a comment now.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:02 am

Can someone explain to someone like me who doesn't really understand how the WMF board is comprised, and what their role is in guiding the foundation, how this removal is significant? Was Hellman the only "elected" representative? If so, how did the other board members gain their seats?

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:09 am

thekohser wrote:I remember back in late March 2015, Heilman was contemplating interfering with other people's livelihoods, by "reporting" them to sites like Elance and Fiverr. I doubt that had anything to do with his dismissal from the WMF board, but it did showcase for me how much Heilman imagined himself some sort of "volunteer police officer" when it came to Wikipedia, which is rather idiotic.

I wonder who will be the first to scramble together a comment to the mailing list? Oh, heavens... I should have known.

Kind of puts Gorman's "I'm too sick, Christmas blah blah blah" excuse for having his Arbcom case postponed as just that; an excuse. Every restaraunt worker has heard the old adage from their manager "If you have time to lean, you have time to clean."

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:36 am

Earthy Astringent wrote:Can someone explain to someone like me who doesn't really understand how the WMF board is comprised, and what their role is in guiding the foundation, how this removal is significant? Was Hellman the only "elected" representative? If so, how did the other board members gain their seats?

Try this: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees

And this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... es#History

And this: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Hi ... _the_Board

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:55 am

greybeard wrote:It's really amateur half-hour to handle something like this. it is straightforward, on any Board, to sideline a member without actually removing him/her. You strip them of committee assignments, appoint an Executive Committee of everyone else except the sidelined member, and then hold perfunctory full Board meetings, ratifying the actions of the EC and any other committees. The full Board meeting can then be accomplished in about 1/2 hour.

That they decided to eject a community board member before the end of his term is hilariously inappropriate and unnecessary. However, don't expect an explanation from the WMF -- to do so could expose them to litigation if Dr. Heilman were so inclined.

That may be legal, but it sure is a cruel way to deal with a fellow colleague. I would hope there would be public and private discussions with the individual trying to find ways at compromise before going to The Outcasts of Poker Flat (T-H-L) strategy.

I volunteer at a non-profit with a board that gets very divisive about issues and compromise (or just plain dropping the subject for eternity) is the only way forward. Sidelining is just not an option. You'd have a civil war and the place would collapse.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:01 am

Randy from Boise wrote:This is a disturbing precedent in which the clique has purged an elected board member and we really must keep up a drumbeat for more information.

I'm sure the Foundation is very much hoping that this won't become "newsworthy" and that it fades off into the distance without being adequately addressed.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:53 am

Kelly Martin wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:This is a disturbing precedent in which the clique has purged an elected board member and we really must keep up a drumbeat for more information.
I'm sure the Foundation is very much hoping that this won't become "newsworthy" and that it fades off into the distance without being adequately addressed.

Given how they folded like a house of cards when Gerard made fainting noises at them, I'd bet Heilman can make them all dance a tune if he chooses.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:42 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
This is a disturbing precedent in which the clique has purged an elected board member and we really must keep up a drumbeat for more information.

The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:17 am

lilburne wrote: The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

That is a completely tasteless comment.