Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[rhindle]

You know, given that the WMF employed an obnoxious jackass like Ironholds for years (and probably still would be employing him if he hadn't left), I find their behaviour extremely hypocritical.

Just read this case and the rulings, for example.

Talk about a long pattern of toxic behaviour.

This reverted edit was pretty on point.

Ironholds was a beneficiary of the "Super Mario problem"

[Moral Hazard]

Ironholds was a young SJW filled with toxic masculinity.

Now Ironholds is much wiser and free to identify as Ironholds wants. May Ironholds freely flourish!

[MoldyHay]

Ironholds was a beneficiary of the "Super Mario problem"

Ever tried playing Super Mario Bros without the mushroom? It’s really freaking hard!

[Vigilant]

Poor Crow,

Did your meds get lost in the mail?
Have tried some of the Swivel eyed Loon's?

[Poetlister]

You know, given that the WMF employed an obnoxious jackass like Ironholds for years (and probably still would be employing him if he hadn't left), I find their behaviour extremely hypocritical.

The WMF was started by Jimbo and doubtless still bears some of the impress of its founder.

[Dysklyver]

1956 posts



Well this blew up...

[Smiley]

1956 posts

Well this blew up...

Recently obtained footage of Wikimedia Foundation's unique bomb-disposal team in action:

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to actual WMF Board members, living or dead, is purely artistic.

[Moral Hazard]

1956 posts

Please explain or post a URL or both.

[mendaliv]

1956 posts

Please explain or post a URL or both.

I think it's the number of posts in this thread.

This is now the 1960th post. We are now entering the hippie phase of this thread.

[Moral Hazard]

Thanks!
Very interesting....

1961 posts.

[10920]

You know, given that the WMF employed an obnoxious jackass like Ironholds for years (and probably still would be employing him if he hadn't left), I find their behaviour extremely hypocritical.

Just read this case and the rulings, for example.

Talk about a long pattern of toxic behaviour.

This reverted edit was pretty on point.

Ironholds was a beneficiary of the "Super Mario problem"

What was that?

As for posts, 1962 is nothing. Wikipedia must be over 11,000 posts about this by now.

[Katie]

You know, given that the WMF employed an obnoxious jackass like Ironholds for years (and probably still would be employing him if he hadn't left), I find their behaviour extremely hypocritical.

Just read this case and the rulings, for example.

Talk about a long pattern of toxic behaviour.

This reverted edit was pretty on point.

Ironholds was a beneficiary of the "Super Mario problem"

What was that?

As for posts, 1962 is nothing. Wikipedia must be over 11,000 posts about this by now.

Basically, the "Super Mario problem" is about how when admins do stuff that get normal editors banned, they're merely desysoped. It's like how when Mario eats a mushroom in Super Mario Bros he gets bigger and it takes one more hit to lose a life. That's why it's called that.

[10920]

ah, gotcha

[Vigilant]

Timely reminder that SmallBoner is a hypocritical shit.

http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.c ... pedia.html

[Poetlister]

1956 posts



Well this blew up...

It's one of the mot eye-boggling things to have happened on Wikipedia for ages, so of course many people here want to comment and indeed to comment many times. Its long-term importance for the purposes of this site remains to be seen.

[10920]

Timely reminder that SmallBoner is a hypocritical shit.

http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.c ... pedia.html

Peter Ex-Man. I like it.

The joke letter references Michael McFaul (T-H-L), though, who seems to have done quite well for himself afterwards.

[mendaliv]

And the complete shithouse that WP:FRAM has devolved into is now trying every way it can to deny the fact that WMF confirmed to the media that they banned Fram for incivility. That goddamn story has been out two weeks already and not a single statement out of WMF contradicting it or claiming their statement was misrepresented.

For fuck's sakes you could probably get past a motion to dismiss with this evidence.

[Alex Shih]

chilling buzzword that was never specifically confirmed or even alleged to be the issue behind this ban

(facepalm) Someone needs to check his ego at the door and re-read what the WMFOffice account said explicitly (as already repeated by three others).

What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”

The "board statement" added nothing to the "issue", as it's basically saying the current process is not working, let's talk about "toxic behavior" in the broad sense. It's really annoying when people like Swarm act like they are the only person that "makes sense" when they can't even recognize a simple fact.

[mendaliv]

chilling buzzword that was never specifically confirmed or even alleged to be the issue behind this ban

(facepalm) Someone needs to check his ego at the door and re-read what the WMFOffice account said explicitly (as already repeated by three others).

What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”

The "board statement" added nothing to the "issue", as it's basically saying the current process is not working, let's talk about "toxic behavior" in the broad sense. It's really annoying when people like Swarm act like they are the only person that "makes sense" when they can't even recognize a simple fact.

The WMFOffice statement just says "harassment and abusing others". According to the TOU, "harassment and abusing others" includes things that are clearly not harassment like "spamming". Moreover, as WMF's statement to BuzzFeed News makes clear, they incorrectly believe that "harassment and abusing others" includes incivility, and the specific reason they banned Fram was to maintain a civil environment. This is 100% about civility, not harassment: They're just using the legalese to trick everyone into thinking this is about harassment.

[Alex Shih]

The WMFOffice statement just says "harassment and abusing others". According to the TOU, "harassment and abusing others" includes things that are clearly not harassment like "spamming". Moreover, as WMF's statement to BuzzFeed News makes clear, they incorrectly believe that "harassment and abusing others" includes incivility, and the specific reason they banned Fram was to maintain a civil environment. This is 100% about civility, not harassment: They're just using the legalese to trick everyone into thinking this is about harassment.

Yeah, exactly, about civility. So basically everyone is now on the same page of trying to define "harassment" in the context of Wikipedia, because obviously WMF doesn't know what "harassment" means themselves. What is Swarm being so worked up about? Someone needs to tell the kid to calm down and stop throwing the word "libel" around.

[mendaliv]

Yeah, exactly, about civility. So basically everyone is now on the same page of trying to define "harassment" in the context of Wikipedia, because obviously WMF doesn't know what "harassment" means themselves. What is Swarm being so worked up about? Someone needs to tell the kid to calm down and stop throwing the word "libel" around.

Swarm's pissed off because nobody's following the conversation how he's trying to structure it. Honestly it's killing off the remaining buzz on the page. Even I'm starting to get tired of it.

[eagle]

I've probably said this a couple of times already, but I suppose it bears repeating - there's no need for anyone here to apologize about what they're calling "outing" and "harassment." By any rational real-world definition, we haven't done either of those things. What some of us have done is assume that the relationship between the two individuals in question is sexual, when we apparently don't have anything definitive or documented about this - i.e., a publicly-posted statement of some kind from either of them stating that their relationship isn't just platonic. We wouldn't expect to find such a statement, but it's still an obvious conjecture, an extremely easy conclusion to draw based on the circumstances that we do know about.

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

The final three years of my thesis journey were accompanied by María Sefidari. After the initial research for the thesis had been complete, she had to live with this thesis and me. Dating, living with and eventually marrying a PhD student during their thesis is no easy feat because this period is filled with all sorts of insecurities on the part of the student, of doubts, of having imposter syndrome, of trying to plan a life around thesis submission dates, and of occasionally being asked to be an expert in a topic that you may not be an expert in. María was patient with me throughout this process, was kind, was supportive, and was everything you could ever ask for in a partner. Falling in love with and marrying her I believe benefited me not just because she is wonderful, but because she helped calm me so I could focus on things that matter in life. When this thesis is finished, she deserves her trip to Canberra to watch me graduate because without my wife, this thesis would have been completed but the end game would not have mattered as much.

(emphasis added)


By "things that matter in life" does Dr. Hale mean "getting Fram SanFranBanned"?

[MrErnie]

I've probably said this a couple of times already, but I suppose it bears repeating - there's no need for anyone here to apologize about what they're calling "outing" and "harassment." By any rational real-world definition, we haven't done either of those things. What some of us have done is assume that the relationship between the two individuals in question is sexual, when we apparently don't have anything definitive or documented about this - i.e., a publicly-posted statement of some kind from either of them stating that their relationship isn't just platonic. We wouldn't expect to find such a statement, but it's still an obvious conjecture, an extremely easy conclusion to draw based on the circumstances that we do know about.

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

The final three years of my thesis journey were accompanied by María Sefidari. After the initial research for the thesis had been complete, she had to live with this thesis and me. Dating, living with and eventually marrying a PhD student during their thesis is no easy feat because this period is filled with all sorts of insecurities on the part of the student, of doubts, of having imposter syndrome, of trying to plan a life around thesis submission dates, and of occasionally being asked to be an expert in a topic that you may not be an expert in. María was patient with me throughout this process, was kind, was supportive, and was everything you could ever ask for in a partner. Falling in love with and marrying her I believe benefited me not just because she is wonderful, but because she helped calm me so I could focus on things that matter in life. When this thesis is finished, she deserves her trip to Canberra to watch me graduate because without my wife, this thesis would have been completed but the end game would not have mattered as much.

(emphasis added)


By "things that matter in life" does Dr. Hale mean "getting Fram SanFranBanned"?

Damn they are married?? I had always assumed by relationship it meant dating. Seems to be the first of any sort of official confirmation of their relationship. Or it could be another attempt at some sort of manipulation, who knows...

Edit: From https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... uestions/1

I don't work for any government agency and neither does my spouse. We were both involved with Wikimedia affiliate boards in the past, and have asked past grants and scholarships (for example, to attend Wikimania) from the WMF. My spouse has not asked for any grants or scholarships since I joined the Board. I have signed the Conflict of Interest form when I joined the Board detailing this, and updated it annually, and recused myself on one instance from a Board decision (related to the affiliate recognition of a group in which my partner was involved). Neither we nor our families have any business relationship with the WMF. Right before joining the Board two years ago I was also a member of the Affiliations Committee and the IEG committee, but resigned from them before entering the Board.

I think that whole quote should be emphasized...

[Midsize Jake]

Well, I guess that answers that question.

Thanks for finding that... so much for expectations. She had to know that was publicly available and that someone would find it, though - it almost beggars belief that she, or they, would go ahead with the T&S complaint and somehow expect that nobody would suspect it was her, and that once the nature of their relationship was known (if not before), that they wouldn't immediately conclude that there was rampant favoritism - actual nepotism - involved, once the WMF took action on her behalf.

I mean, obviously women are just as capable of doing crazy and stupid things as men, but call me old-fashioned, I guess I still can't help being surprised by it.

[Vigilant]

So, the SPOUSE of the Chair of the Board of Trustees is likely the complainant to T&S.

I'm pretty sure the community and ARBCOM are WELL within their rights to ask for more clarification on FRAMAGEDDON now.

Unless there's a flat out denial and proof that this ISN'T the case then:
* Sefidari needs to resign
* the 'Vanished User' needs a SANFRANBAN for being a manipulative, lying shit
* the Trust and Safety team needs to be dismantled
* a formal audit of this whole mess needs to be started with an external legal team who has broad discretion to investigate and recommend changes
* the board likely needs a scrubbing to the nub as well

Katherine Maher knew from at least the time that T&S passed it up to her and likely earlier since this is explosive shit.
The Board all knew for a month at least.
ARBCOM has the 'lightly redacted' information so they've known for at least a week.

They've all been hiding the true nature of this situation and lying by omission to a ton of people who are rightly pissed off.


God. Damn.


We've always known the WMF was a snake pit, but holeeeyy shit.

[Vigilant]

Now we wait until this appears on WP:FRAM...

[MrErnie]

Something still bugging me is that Laura Hale stopped editing 3 hours before the FRAMBAN was dropped, and hasn't edited since. The first time her name was hinted at was by Fram, in his first response on Commons nearly a day after the ban. Did she know the ban was coming or had she somehow been tipped off? These types of questions, about Hale and Raystorm, should not be forbidden on wiki, as they are germane to the whole incident.

[eagle]

The next step should be to call for the WMF Board Chair to resign. The 2015 COI disclosure was barely adequate.

The 2017 COI disclosure was more problematic. linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... stions/1#3[/link]

No - I am a professor at the Digital Communications, Culture and Citizenship Master’s Degree Program at Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain. The way COI disclosures work at the Board level is by signing a COI form when you join, and proactively informing Legal, the ED, the Chair... when a potential or perceived COI may occur. So in the case of me having a COI, I would make sure it was properly managed and the Foundation was aware of it, so I could be excused from any decision making even remotely related to it - I have proactively done this every time I believed there could be an issue.

Her disclosure did link to this Board minute: linkhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/M ... tion_items[/link]

The Board discussed recognition of the Wikinewsie Group as a Thematic Organization, and took the Affiliations Committee’s recommendation under consideration. The Board decided that it was not ready to approve the Wikinewsie Group as a Thematic Organization at this time, and the Board would like to encourage them to continue activities as a User Group. Phoebe made a motion to vote, seconded by Sam. Phoebe, Jan-Bart, Sam, Ana, Stu, and Alice supported this decision; Bishakha, and Patricio opposed the decision; Maria and Jimmy were recused.

FRAMBAN has been a first rate mess. The spouse of the WMF Chair instigated the T&S investigation, and that relationship put the investigators and the Executive Director in an impossible position. Instead of publicly stating "I am recused because my spouse was the complainant" she made an oblique comparison to GamerGate. Instead of a vocal advocate for the community and a leader of the Board, we have an empty chair.

There are a number of big issues that the WMF Board must address:

• the "universal code of conduct" - which will address 'toxic' editors
• what WMF should do to cover news and current events - which her spouse has played a major role
• how the WMF should asses the research that it sponsors and assure that it gets best value for its investment

Community elected WMF Board members should be able to speak out on these important issues clearly without COI.

Resign now.

[Vigilant]

Something still bugging me is that Laura Hale stopped editing 3 hours before the FRAMBAN was dropped, and hasn't edited since. The first time her name was hinted at was by Fram, in his first response on Commons nearly a day after the ban. Did she know the ban was coming or had she somehow been tipped off? These types of questions, about Hale and Raystorm, should not be forbidden on wiki, as they are germane to the whole incident.

Look at Raystorm's contributions...

Response

I have had nothing to do with this decision to ban an enwiki admin at all. Office actions do not go through the Board, but even if they did, WMF is aware of any COIs I might have since it is something all trustees proactively disclose. I filed no case against this user and I wasn’t given any prior notification that this was going to happen either, neither did the Board. The bad faith scenario that certain individuals are conjuring up is designed to get people riled up, but it has no basis in truth.

I want to say something else. This community, when confronted with the ban of an admin on the grounds of problematic behavior, instead of examining said behavior immediately turned to find another individual to blame, finally settling on Laura. She has since then been under relentless public examination, with a deep look at her past, the quality of her edits, her being a WiR (in 2013!), her personal relationships, and even people going through Commons and elsewhere to find pictures of her and pictures of me and posting them externally. Her ban (and mine) have been called for – this has no effect for me since this is not my community, but it is de facto what will happen to Laura, since I don’t see how she will be able to continue contributing with say 20+ people following her edits waiting for some kind of error. But even further - this pattern of trying to prove, in order to absolve a banned admin, that there must be either something in her past, or that she must have done something wrong or used undue influence for her own personal gain, is sadly familiar to most women in the internet, and has strong textbook reminiscences of for instance Gamergate. This is not safe. It’s not healthy for this community either. I urge this community to go back to reasonable discussion – one in which there is an honest conversation about the health of this project and how to promote a thriving community, and the role community and WMF can share to ensure this happens. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

She skirts the edge and tries to imply that Laura Hale wasn't involved.
But she never says Laura Hale wasn't the complainant.
There's just a ton of deflection and incrimination against others.
And then utter silence for a month.

That's not an atypical response when someone gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

[Vigilant]

Crow inadvertently makes a good point.

If Laura Hale were not the complainant, why would Maria Sefidari need to recuse at all?

Edit: Crow is salty as fuck tonight. Sounds like a tweaker in his rants.

[Carcharoth]

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

Could you point me to where I can confirm this for myself. I'd like to take this further, if others have not already, though some care is needed to use the right channels here and to put things the right way.

[Vigilant]

Geez, Crow.
Your 'notice me, senpai' schtick is getting tired.

I sense your need for companionship, but I only like you as a friend.

Perhaps you can get a leg over on the Swivel Eyed Loon.
Just pop a paper bag on his head do your thing.

[WBG]

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

Could you point me to where I can confirm this for myself. I'd like to take this further, if others have not already, though some care is needed to use the right channels here and to put things the right way.

Check Page 4 over here. The other parts of thesis (including the main dissertation) may be downloaded from here.

And, the best part is that she has licensed the entire thesis under CC BY-ND 3.0.

[Carcharoth]

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

Could you point me to where I can confirm this for myself. I'd like to take this further, if others have not already, though some care is needed to use the right channels here and to put things the right way.

Check Page 4 over here.

Thanks for that (and to others who have sent those details). Completely public knowledge. *sigh*

[Moral Hazard]

To all the haters:

How dare you claiming that LauraHale lacks self-awareness!

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

all sorts of insecurities on the part of the student, of doubts, of having imposter syndrome, [...], and of occasionally being asked to be an expert in a topic that you may not be an expert in.

(emphasis added)

Shame on you!

[MrErnie]

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

Could you point me to where I can confirm this for myself. I'd like to take this further, if others have not already, though some care is needed to use the right channels here and to put things the right way.

Check Page 4 over here. The other parts of thesis (including the main dissertation) may be downloaded from here.

And, the best part is that she has licensed the entire thesis under CC BY-ND 3.0.

From the date listed in the abstract we can assume they were married by some time in 2015. That puts this discussion linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... BLP_errors[/link] in a bit of a different context. Raystorm is intervening there on behalf of her spouse!

[WBG]

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

Could you point me to where I can confirm this for myself. I'd like to take this further, if others have not already, though some care is needed to use the right channels here and to put things the right way.

Check Page 4 over here. The other parts of thesis (including the main dissertation) may be downloaded from here.

And, the best part is that she has licensed the entire thesis under CC BY-ND 3.0.

From the date listed in the abstract we can assume they were married by some time in 2015. That puts this discussion linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... BLP_errors[/link] in a bit of a different context. Raystorm is intervening there on behalf of her spouse!

Obviously. *Sigh*

[Guido den Broeder]

Something still bugging me is that Laura Hale stopped editing 3 hours before the FRAMBAN was dropped, and hasn't edited since. The first time her name was hinted at was by Fram, in his first response on Commons nearly a day after the ban. Did she know the ban was coming or had she somehow been tipped off? These types of questions, about Hale and Raystorm, should not be forbidden on wiki, as they are germane to the whole incident.

Or, she simply decided to stop editing AFTER receiving the news, and her last edit just happened to be 3 hours before (it had to be somewhen).

Crow inadvertently makes a good point.

If Laura Hale were not the complainant, why would Maria Sefidari need to recuse at all?

Perhaps because Laura was ONE of the complainants, and/or because someone complained on her behalf?

[WBG]

Came across another article by Laura. Is it just me or does her signature (over Page 1) seem way weird?

Also, what eventually happened to that wiki-project, which seemed to be her last/latest pet endeavor? The wiki was up, at-least till 9 January, 2019.

FWIW, she seems to be currently pursuing post-doctoral research at Universidad de Salamanca.

[10920]

...being asked to be an expert in a topic that you may not be an expert in.

Interesting way of saying you are completely clueless and incompetent.

[The Adversary]

Edit: From https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... uestions/1

I don't work for any government agency and neither does my spouse. We were both involved with Wikimedia affiliate boards in the past, and have asked past grants and scholarships (for example, to attend Wikimania) from the WMF. My spouse has not asked for any grants or scholarships since I joined the Board. I have signed the Conflict of Interest form when I joined the Board detailing this, and updated it annually, and recused myself on one instance from a Board decision (related to the affiliate recognition of a group in which my partner was involved). Neither we nor our families have any business relationship with the WMF. Right before joining the Board two years ago I was also a member of the Affiliations Committee and the IEG committee, but resigned from them before entering the Board.

I think that whole quote should be emphasized...

(My bolding)
Interesting. (link, Sefidari statement 9 May 2015)

So Laura Hale paid her own way to the Wikidata Zurich Meetup in October 2018?
Or was that "My spouse has not asked for any grants or scholarships since I joined the Board" not policy anymore after Sefdari became head of board?



Also: Note that on 17 April 2019 LauraHale added herself to who could vote on "Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Eligible entities" (as a representative of "Wikibase Community User Group")
And she did indeed vote, see "Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Eligible entities.

It makes you wonder what was behind other voters there?

(PS: Good Lord. "Wikibase Community User Group" was basically a group set in October 2017 to support ...Laura Hale link)

[Vigilant]

My spouse has not asked for any grants or scholarships since I joined the Board.

A better question would be has she received any...regardless of asking for them or not?

Does the Chair of the Board of Trustees have an allowance or expense account or slush fund that was used to benefit her spouse at or getting to these events (thus burying it in a larger bill)?

[The Adversary]

My spouse has not asked for any grants or scholarships since I joined the Board.

A better question would be has she received any...regardless of asking for them or not?

Does the Chair of the Board of Trustees have an allowance or expense account or slush fund that was used to benefit her spouse at or getting to these events (thus burying it in a larger bill)?

Yeah, like to Wikidata:WikidataCon 2017 in Berlin, eg. (where LauraHale definitely participated, see link)

Just to make clear: it isn't necessarily wrong for the spouse of the Head of the Board of WMF to be paid to participate in conferences in Zurich, or Berlin, or wherever (as long as Sefidari has not been involved directly in granting this, which I assume she has not.)

However, if LauraHale has been given grants or scholarships from WMF after Sefidari became Head of Board, it sure does makes Sefidari's statement in May 2015 look...shall we say "economical with the truth"?

(So it is not ok if your spouse receive support from WMF when you are a mere member of the Board, but it is OK to receive it if you are the Head of the Board?)

Ok, LauraHale/Sefdari might of course have paid for it themselves......lets not jump to any conclusions.

[Vigilant]

From the preface of Hale's Ph.D. dissertation:

Could you point me to where I can confirm this for myself. I'd like to take this further, if others have not already, though some care is needed to use the right channels here and to put things the right way.

Check Page 4 over here. The other parts of thesis (including the main dissertation) may be downloaded from here.

And, the best part is that she has licensed the entire thesis under CC BY-ND 3.0.

From the date listed in the abstract we can assume they were married by some time in 2015. That puts this discussion linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... BLP_errors[/link] in a bit of a different context. Raystorm is intervening there on behalf of her spouse!

That spat is from October 2016.
Maria Sefidari was vice chair of the board of trustees at the time.
The PhD thesis was from 2015 and describes them as married.

So, as the Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees, she intervened on what she has described as "not my home wiki" and "not my community" to advocate for her spouse, who had mad a huge mess with her array of shitty copy/paste stubs that were riddled with errors, all the time without revealing that conflict of interest to the person she's arguing against (Fram).

Despite this, she is somehow elevated to the Chair position.

Damn, people.

[Vigilant]

Came across another article by Laura. Is it just me or does her signature (over Page 1) seem way weird?

Oh yes.

[DanMurphy]

On Wikipedia, any second now: "Wellllll, you don't know if the Maria Sefidari she says she's married to is the same Maria Sefidari. And trying to find out is outing."

[Katie]

Came across another article by Laura. Is it just me or does her signature (over Page 1) seem way weird?

Oh yes.

Yeah, the signature looks joined up too much and pretty weird. For something like that I'd take the time to get it right.

[Vigilant]

My spouse has not asked for any grants or scholarships since I joined the Board.

A better question would be has she received any...regardless of asking for them or not?

Does the Chair of the Board of Trustees have an allowance or expense account or slush fund that was used to benefit her spouse at or getting to these events (thus burying it in a larger bill)?

Yeah, like to Wikidata:WikidataCon 2017 in Berlin, eg. (where LauraHale definitely participated, see link)

Just to make clear: it isn't necessarily wrong for the spouse of the Head of the Board of WMF to be paid to participate in conferences in Zurich, or Berlin, or wherever (as long as Sefidari has not been involved directly in granting this, which I assume she has not.)

However, if LauraHale has been given grants or scholarships from WMF after Sefidari became Head of Board, it sure does makes Sefidari's statement in May 2015 look...shall we say "economical with the truth"?

(So it is not ok if your spouse receive support from WMF when you are a mere member of the Board, but it is OK to receive it if you are the Head of the Board?)

Ok, LauraHale/Sefdari might of course have paid for it themselves......lets not jump to any conclusions.

What are the odds that the WMF didn't pay for Laura Hale's trips?

Does the Chair of the Board of Trustees get a big salary?

Do postdoc candidates who don't/can't work pay for these things?

Do people with this resume typically have disposable income?

Ms. María Sefidari is a founding member of Wikimedia España (WMES), the Spanish chapter of the Wikimedia movement and served on its Board as its first Vice President. Ms. Sefidari serves as Vice Chair of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. and has been its Trustee since June 2013. Ms. Sefidari started contributing to English Wikipedia in 2006. She started editing articles related to psychology, but soon expanded to other topics, including computer science, literature, science fiction and LGBT articles. Almost a year later, she started contributing to Spanish Wikipedia, where she founded the LGBT WikiProject and became an administrator and bureaucrat within her first six months. She has +2000 edits on English Wikipedia, where she significantly contributed to a Featured Article (FA), and +18000 edits on Spanish Wikipedia, where she has significantly contributed to 14 FAs and 9 GA's. She is an accredited reporter for English Wikinews. In 2012, she was elected a member of the Chapters' Committee (ChapCom), the Wikimedia community committee entrusted with advising the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on the approval of new national or subnational chapters. In mid-2012, following a community discussion and a resulting Board of Trustees' resolution, the scope of the Committee was expanded and it transitioned into the Affiliations Committee (AffCom), and now includes thematic organisations and user groups. As a member of AffCom, she has acted as liaison with many groups seeking recognition and has helped guide them through the process of successfully becoming affiliates. To do this she has helped in community organising, cross-cultural communication, reviewing bylaws and providing governance advice for emerging organisations. In September 2012 she was elected the first Treasurer of AffCom, tasked with overseeing and monitoring disbursement of the Committee's budget and she was re-elected in March 2013. Ms. Sefidari has also served on the Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) committee for its first round. She graduated with a Psychology degree from Universidad Complutense de Madrid and she afterwards got a Masters' degree in Management and Tourism at the Business faculty of the same university.

Now it looks very much like a pair of grifters at the WMF trough.

[nableezy]

Is there any evidence, any at all, that Laura is actually the person who filed a complaint? If she isn't then, and I recognize this is generally a bad idea, ArbCom would do well to publicly say so in the hopes that just maybe people stop trolling through her entire online existence.

[Randy from Boise]

Friends of journalists: we may now have the "hook" they have been looking for to break this story bigger in the mainstream press. It's all about insider abuse of donor money.

RfB

P.S. Fuck Breitbart!

P.P.S. I notice that Victuallers (T-C-L)(Roger Bamkin)* is one of Vanished User adhmfdfmykrdyr (T-C-L) 's biggest defenders against Fram on her talk page. Why does that somehow not surprise me?

Step away Fram. Others are telling you that are being obsessive. You are calling into question an admin's qualifications because they are not agreeing with you about an article that was so terrible that it had to be completely deleted from user space. Was it a terrorist bomb plot? or a libel against a saint? Or something so subtle that only experienced admins like you can appreciate the nuance? Step away Fram, this is not reflecting well on you. (Oct. 5, 2016)

* - Self-identified on-wiki.