Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Randy from Boise]

There's some concern that this site forms the basis of the complaint against Fram.

If true, guess who they are going after next...

ANSWER: linkhttps://wikipedia-health.netlify.com/ed ... c_corbett/[/link]

RfB

[Vigilant]

Here's the same indef blocked sockpuppeteer opining on the mailing lists about the direction of the WMF.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 93281.html

He's been sucking up to the new regime in there...

This is also pretty interesting...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=us

Looks like someone holds a grudge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... type=block

He IS a busy little bee, especially for someone who only joined meta on June of this year and en.wp April of this year.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... on_Manning

And he exposed his IP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... rchive_101
https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/107.77.232.68


Home boy has some tech chops...

@92.23.35.206: Also lack of double redundancy. There are 2 physical AoA sensors and 2 FCC, 1 on each side, but the software (including Mcas) running on each FCC uses only one sensor, on the same side, ignoring the other side. There isn't any kind of redundancy, not just in Mcas, also in the Speed Trim System (STS). The STS is present on the 737 NG too, but it's more predictable and 4 times slower. Even with the software update, if the two sensors deviate by more than 5.5 degrees, Mcas can't tell which one failed, so it simply stops working.

Developing redundant systems is very complex. In a proper, dual-channel system 2 computers each run 2 independently developed software on 2 different processors, comparing the output for agreement. "The first issue was letting MCAS operate on a single vane. Boeing can revise MCAS to be a legitimate fail-safe design by fully utilizing both Flight Control Computer (FCC) channels in a brick-wall fashion. Any software patch to stub in a voted AoA vane on one side may not be fully fail-safe. As each FCC has a dual processor, both processors should agree for any command to be issued, yet this still may not be as compelling as using both FCC channels."[1]
— Aron Manning (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

There's some concern that this site forms the basis of the complaint against Fram.

If true, guess who they are going after next...

ANSWER: linkhttps://wikipedia-health.netlify.com/ed ... c_corbett/[/link]

RfB

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

[Midsize Jake]

Here's the same indef blocked sockpuppeteer opining on the mailing lists about the direction of the WMF.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 93281.html

He's been sucking up to the new regime in there...

This is also pretty interesting...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=us

He IS a busy little bee, especially for someone who only joined meta on June of this year and en.wp April of this year.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... on_Manning

Before we all get too enthusiastic about researching Mr. Manning's recent activities, let's bear in mind that he recently joined our site (as "Osborne") and that so far, he hasn't posted much here that would suggest he's likely to be the one masterminding all this stuff.

Also, I think his comment on meta ("This edit is so abusive, it almost destroyed the pillars of Wikipedia") was just him being sarcastic.

Hopefully he'll drop by later and explain what role he's had, if any, in this whole business - but it's possible that this is just an accident of timing, which is to say he got blocked on WP because of "systemic admin abuse" right around the same time that Fram was being banned for allegedly being an abusive admin. IOW, the two incidents may not be related at all, but as you know, sometimes when people get blocked they start gathering a lot of general evidence to support the notion that admin abuse is common (since it is) to back up their contention that they were treated wrongly. In this case, maybe some of that evidence would have included the Fram and Eric Corbett situations.

[Randy from Boise]

There's some concern that this site forms the basis of the complaint against Fram.

If true, guess who they are going after next...

ANSWER: linkhttps://wikipedia-health.netlify.com/ed ... c_corbett/[/link]

RfB

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

It's a strange pick, but they probably know EC has lots of friends and that World War III would ensue. Fram is a test case, Corbutt is the real target.

RfB

[mendaliv]

There's some concern that this site forms the basis of the complaint against Fram.

If true, guess who they are going after next...

ANSWER: linkhttps://wikipedia-health.netlify.com/ed ... c_corbett/[/link]

RfB

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

It's a strange pick, but they probably know EC has lots of friends and that World War III would ensue. Fram is a test case, Corbutt is the real target.

RfB

Yep, like I've been saying, this can be easily analogized to Thomas Jefferson's attack on the federal judiciary during his administration. The Democratic-Republican-controlled Congress impeached John Pickering (judge) (T-H-L) first, being a fairly easy target as a prominent Federalist politician from New Hampshire who was essentially given a district judgeship as something relaxing to retire into (federal courts didn't do a whole lot back then), so Democratic-Republicans in Congress would have reason to get even with him. Moreover, it gave the Congress a chance to work the kinks out of the impeachment trial procedure. Pickering having been successfully impeached, Jefferson leaned on his allies in the Congress to impeach Samuel Chase (T-H-L), who was ultimately acquitted. Had they removed him from office, it's thought Jefferson's next target would've been John Marshall (T-H-L).

Though neither man deserves the analogy to these historical giants, Fram is like the Samuel Chase, while Eric is the John Marshall. I'm not sure who the John Pickering is of the lot. Perhaps Romaine.

Or perhaps Fram is the John Pickering, while Eric will be the Samuel Chase, and someone far less acerbic but definitely on WMF's shitlist will be the John Marshall.

[Mason]

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

It's a strange pick, but they probably know EC has lots of friends and that World War III would ensue.

Yep. And Fram is a cabal of 1. There is not, and never has been, a Fram fan club.

[Kumioko]

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

It's a strange pick, but they probably know EC has lots of friends and that World War III would ensue.

Yep. And Fram is a cabal of 1. There is not, and never has been, a Fram fan club.

Well there wasn't but since the community decided to throw a fit about his ban, they are his fans now.

[mendaliv]

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

It's a strange pick, but they probably know EC has lots of friends and that World War III would ensue.

Yep. And Fram is a cabal of 1. There is not, and never has been, a Fram fan club.

Well there wasn't but since the community decided to throw a fit about his ban, they are his fans now.

“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting). The most important thing people need to keep in mind when they argue about this is that they don't have to be Fram fans or support his return or anything like that. By all accounts, Fram is "not very nice people". You don't have to love the guy, nor do you have to love Ernesto Miranda (T-H-L).

[eagle]

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

It's a strange pick, but they probably know EC has lots of friends and that World War III would ensue.

Yep. And Fram is a cabal of 1. There is not, and never has been, a Fram fan club.

I am sure that he has many friends back in Belgium, but it is hard to make alliances when you are editing from a non-English speaking country. By the way, did Fram on any of his friends show up at Wikimania?

[10920]

It's odd that they didn't do Corbett first, don't you think?

It's a strange pick, but they probably know EC has lots of friends and that World War III would ensue.

Yep. And Fram is a cabal of 1. There is not, and never has been, a Fram fan club.

Well there wasn't but since the community decided to throw a fit about his ban, they are his fans now.

No, the community aren't his fans. The community just doesn't like well-known editors being disappeared based on nothing.

[Kumioko]

Well they banned me based on nothing so that doesn't hold water. The difference is Fram was an admin and I was a mere editor and although I was a very high output one, the community simply doesn't care about editors, it's about status!

[10920]

No, that really isn't it.

But I did see that response coming.

[mendaliv]

But I did see that response coming.

Heh same.

[lonza leggiera]

Here's the same indef blocked sockpuppeteer opining on the mailing lists about the direction of the WMF.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 93281.html

He's been sucking up to the new regime in there...

This is also pretty interesting...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=us

He IS a busy little bee, especially for someone who only joined meta on June of this year and en.wp April of this year.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... on_Manning

Before we all get too enthusiastic about researching Mr. Manning's recent activities, let's bear in mind that he recently joined our site (as "Osborne") and that so far, he hasn't posted much here that would suggest he's likely to be the one masterminding all this stuff.

…

Indeed.The much-vaunted verbatim similarities between the ARBCOM's summary of "evidence" and some of the material on Mr Manning's Unofficial Wikipedia Community Health blog seem to have been the result of both having copy-pasted material from here. Mr Manning, at least, had the courtesy of providing a link to that page as the source of his material, something which the ARBCOM evidence page doesn't do, thus giving readers a mistaken impression that this supposed evidence had been derived from emails submitted by the "community".

It's possible, I suppose, that ARBCOM did in fact copy-paste this material from submitted emails, rather than the original source. If so, however, it's very remiss of them not to have noted (or perhaps not even realised) that these accusations have been regurgitated from an 18-month old ANI dispute that no-one at the time thought sufficiently serious to bother referring to ARBCOM.

[Jans Hammer]

A taster / scene setter from WTT. Comment by Arbitrators:
As I see it, we have 4 routes with the ban. 1) Overturn completely, 2) time served, 3) status quo, 4) indefinite. Whichever is chosen, I think we would need a good explanation in the findings, and certainly as written above, 1 or 2 seem like the right options. However, as you say, this does not factor in the T&S document. WormTT(talk) 11:32 am, Today (UTC+1)

[mendaliv]

A taster / scene setter from WTT. Comment by Arbitrators:
As I see it, we have 4 routes with the ban. 1) Overturn completely, 2) time served, 3) status quo, 4) indefinite. Whichever is chosen, I think we would need a good explanation in the findings, and certainly as written above, 1 or 2 seem like the right options. However, as you say, this does not factor in the T&S document. WormTT(talk) 11:32 am, Today (UTC+1)

Woah.

If he's considering 1 or 2 and not factoring in the T&S document, then it sounds like he's leaning towards not using it at all. That could be exciting.

[Moral Hazard]

WTT has his moments.
He also has a record of trying to help new users and think of the long-term viability of Wikipedia, so he cannot be accused of being part of a FA-cabal.

He must abhor the WMF's new priorities of
(1) using social-media metrics such as new users and
(2) making Wikipedia a safespace for Laura Hale and others who cannot write English or use sources but who do have an decade-long internet trail of trying to monetize sites (and destroying anybody in her way). That Hale is married to the chairman of the board likely is a concern.

[Jans Hammer]

WTT has his moments.
He also has a record of trying to help new users and think of the long-term viability of Wikipedia, so he cannot be accused of being part of a FA-cabal.

He must abhor the WMF's new priorities of
(1) using social-media metrics such as new users and
(2) making Wikipedia a safespace for Laura Hale and others who cannot write English or use sources but who do have an decade-long internet trail of trying to monetize sites (and destroying anybody in her way). That Hale is married to the chairman of the board likely is a concern.

Do you think he is Arbcom's appointed spokesman (I refuse to say spokes "person") or is he the only one regularly willing to put his head above the parapet?

[Moral Hazard]

WTT sees work to be done, offers to do it, and then does it.

[Osborne]

Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team (T&S) has provided the committee with their materials concerning Fram. The 70-page document is partially redacted

The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post, the evidence provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence. However, it can reasonably be inferred that there would be a significant degree of overlap between the two categories of evidence

the arbitrators know how much overlap there is and where the two differ. For another, there is far more detail in the T&S document too.

If he's considering 1 or 2 and not factoring in the T&S document, then it sounds like he's leaning towards not using it at all. That could be exciting.

If there is "significant degree of overlap" between the one page evidence posted by the community and the 70-page wmf docu, then I have the feeling the latter has 69 blank pages...
If there was something in the docu, then why is the arbs' opinion based purely on the public evidence, and leaning towards 1 and 2? It might be 70 blank pages after all.
This sounds like my assuming bad faith scenario in which some ppl at WMF decided to ban him, and then let the volunteers provide the evidence

[mendaliv]

WTT has his moments.
He also has a record of trying to help new users and think of the long-term viability of Wikipedia, so he cannot be accused of being part of a FA-cabal.

He must abhor the WMF's new priorities of
(1) using social-media metrics such as new users and
(2) making Wikipedia a safespace for Laura Hale and others who cannot write English or use sources but who do have an decade-long internet trail of trying to monetize sites (and destroying anybody in her way). That Hale is married to the chairman of the board likely is a concern.

Do you think he is Arbcom's appointed spokesman (I refuse to say spokes "person") or is he the only one regularly willing to put his head above the parapet?

I think it's a combination of self-selection due to successful interactions, and the others keeping a low profile due to failed interactions; viz. Premeditated Chaos's comment about a week and a half ago in the Ritchie333 thread (the response to which was overwhelmingly negative, well-reasoned, and justifiably infuriated). It was apparently bad enough that PMC didn't make any contribs on enwiki for over 48 hours. I think it's also related to one of the problems in the Ritchie333 announcement: For every arb that spoke up, we suddenly had another incompatible explanation of the Ritchie333 sanction.

This latter point is completely the fault of the arbs as well, for not approaching their tasks with the appropriate formality. If there'd been formal FoFs and a formal decision, even if it was unpublished, they all could've understood what they did and why they did it. This failure was badly compounded by their informal approach to communicating about their decisions. Nobody should have said anything, either explaining or justifying their decision, unless they all spoke about it and made a formal statement.

[eagle]

WTT sees work to be done, offers to do it, and then does it.

That basically sums up Fram as well.

If all that they have on the Fram / Laura Hale interaction is the proposal to ban her from DYK and from working from Google translate, then ArbCom should find that Fram's actions in those two regards were based on valid concerns and that the Community fashioned remedies to improve Laura Hale's misbehaviors, so Laura Hale was not justified in filing a Harassment complaint with T&S. We really need to have ArbCom call out unjustified harassment complaints. Harassment is an objective standard and does not mean "he made me feel bad about my editing activity." With Laura Hale, any criticism was viewed as an serious threat to her existence. Also, manipulating DYK for pay to benefit an outside group seeking to publicize its program is beyond what is allowed by "Wikimedia in residence." (The mission was to get other people involved in editing, not to inflate page views by cutting corners on gaining access to the main page. I agree that Fram / Hale got a bit testy and adversarial, but if you read it carefully, Laura Hale was escalating and bringing in her army of allies rather than sticking to the matter at hand.

[GoldenRing]

If there was something in the docu, then why is the arbs' opinion based purely on the public evidence, and leaning towards 1 and 2? It might be 70 blank pages after all.

But what WTT said was, "Whichever is chosen, I think we would need a good explanation in the findings, and certainly as written above, 1 or 2 seem like the right options. However, as you say, this does not factor in the T&S document." (emphasis mine)

In other words, based on the evidence presented publicly options 1 or 2 are the obvious choices, but this may change when the T&S doc is considered.

[Osborne]

this may change when the T&S doc is considered.

They have read the docu weeks ago. My thinking is, why wouldn't they consider it? I'm sure my views would be influenced by what I read, even if I do my best to ignore it.

[Jans Hammer]

this may change when the T&S doc is considered.

They have read the docu weeks ago. My thinking is, why wouldn't they consider it? I'm sure my views would be influenced by what I read, even if I do my best to ignore it.

I don't know how they can frame this to include the evidence which they cannot share. They will have to have done a deal with WMF to commute the ban to time served - presumably with assurances by Arbcom to get their house in order.

[Mason]

Some interesting bits on Jehochman's talk page:

If the T&S document was utterly damning, we wouldn't have had a case.

A bit risky to read the tea leaves, of course, but that seems like an acknowledgement that the "smoking gun" people keep darkly alluding to does not, in fact, exist.

[mendaliv]

Some interesting bits on Jehochman's talk page:

If the T&S document was utterly damning, we wouldn't have had a case.

A bit risky to read the tea leaves, of course, but that seems like an acknowledgement that the "smoking gun" people keep darkly alluding to does not, in fact, exist.

You've got to read the whole sentence though:

If the committee had decided there was nothing worth looking at in the T&S document, we wouldn't have had a case - equally if the T&S document was utterly damning, we wouldn't have had a case.

He's saying that there's a "there" there, but also saying that if it contained improprieties of extreme proportions, either WMF wouldn't have let the Committee review it, or the Committee would have summarily affirmed the decision upon reviewing the T&S document.

Or at least that's what I get out of it. He's trying to say it's somewhere in between two extremes... which is really fairly meaningless.

[Mason]

Well, no one thought T&S had "nothing" or even "nothing problematic." On the other hand, plenty of people seemed to suggest there was something Really, Really Bad in there, and WTT seems to be saying "nah, not really."

[Vigilant]

It's Laura Hale.

ARBCOM has said that it's not off-wiki stuff.

The report detailed long-term disputes with several community members, Arbcom as a body and its membership, and Foundation staff members. We did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse.

There's nothing left in the public domain of Fram's edits that might even come close, especially given how strongly Hale and Sefidari responded and nobody else did.

Anybody have a better theory?

[Earthy Astringent]

What’s the 411 on the Laura Hale story? I’ve never seen anything about her except at WO. It sounds like she wormed her way onto the WMF tit and suckled on it. It also sounds like she had accomplices inside and out. But that’s only my impression from what y’all said.

[Vigilant]

What’s the 411 on the Laura Hale story? I’ve never seen anything about her except at WO. It sounds like she wormed her way onto the WMF tit and suckled on it. It also sounds like she had accomplices inside and out. But that’s only my impression from what y’all said.

Start here
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10443&p=239134#p239098

See here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10586&p=244436#p244436

See the previous crazy. It's super crazy.
https://fanlore.org/wiki/Calling_out_Mi ... tly_Bouncy
https://fanlore.org/wiki/Fan_History_Wiki


Laura Hale is a serial grifter in wiki space.
Fram had the unmitigated gall to call out her unmitigated creation of garbage on en.wp.
Laura went after him like she went after every single other person who has ever thwarted her intentions.
Usually, Laura gets found out and kicked to the curb.
This time, Laura had air cover by being married to the Chair of the Board of Directors of the WMF.

[Vigilant]

NYB dumps all over the WMF generally and T&S specifically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ewyorkbrad

TL;DR - T&S screwed up. Hard. Fram needs to be fully reinstated immediately.

From here
It appears Ira and I share a common interpretation that this case is all about Laura Hale at its core.

Following another editor's contributions

5) It is important, though it can sometimes be difficult, to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor making problematic edits, which is acceptable and in some cases even necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. From several prior cases and I believe, reading between the lines, at the heart of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

[eagle]

What’s the 411 on the Laura Hale story? I’ve never seen anything about her except at WO. It sounds like she wormed her way onto the WMF tit and suckled on it. It also sounds like she had accomplices inside and out. But that’s only my impression from what y’all said.

I would never fall for your bait and respond directly so as to earn the condemnation of WO as the site that unfairly hounded the two innocent victims of the Framgate mob. Somebody's post doctoral fellowship at the University of Salamanca ran out in March. Current employment status is unknown. Given that when a user elects to vanish, all of her on-wiki creds disappear and can't practically be used to gain further on-wiki work. The claim has been stated that so long as Maria is Chair of the WMF, her spouse is not seeking WMF grants or funding. To date, there has been no sign of any portion of the Ph.D. dissertation or work as a post doc being published in a peer reviewed journal. Her Twitter account @purplepopple has been deactivated. Her other Twitter account @parasport_news has 321 followers. Her URL parasport-news.com is still registered and hosted at Dreamhost, but the site seems to be down at the moment.

Her project to build a database with information on disabled people using Wikibase, the database engine that power wikidata. This summer she served as the voting delegate for the Wikibase Communty Users Group in the WMF Trustee elections.

All of this information is not about the unnamed person.

[Vigilant]

I am saddened by developments since I have been away. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence and the failure to present evidence from T&S so that Fram can defend themselves is abhorrent. ArbCom's treatment of Ritchie333 is inexcusable. Certain "Wikimedia movement" "Working Group" recommendations show a strong push to move the project in a manner totally incompatible with the pillars on which it was built. I confess to despair at the state of affairs. It is difficult right now to imagine being to participate here again in future... WJBscribe (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of colonial language speakers from wikispaces is well underway, sir!

[Vigilant]

As the scales fall from their eyes...

The report detailed long-term disputes with several community members, Arbcom as a body and its membership, and Foundation staff members. We did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse. Is that the relevant description? I don't see in there an accusation of anything sanctionable. Having "long-term disputes" by itself isn't sanction-able. Maybe Fram was right, and those he was disputing with were wrong and corrupt, but they were in power and had friends, so they arranged for Fram to be banned. This stinks like hell. I recommend you open the windows for fresh air. Just tell WMF that you are obligated to overturn their sanctions unless they are willing to let you release enough information to show that a ban is justified. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

At some point, the question of bad faith reporting of Fram to T&S will have to be broached.
An independent evaluation of the reporting incidents and the motivations of the reporters needs to be done.

This will inevitably lead to questions of competence and corruption inside the WMF and the Board.

[Vigilant]

In his first reaction on the ban, on 11 June 2019 8:03, Fram summarised the totality of the (very limited) communication that he received from WMF over the years. It included a March 2019 warning about two (correct) edits he made, half a year earlier, to mainspace articles. Somehow, those edits made a user with initials LH feel uncomfortable. Fram’s diff I believe this is what Worm That Turned refers to as Fram’s slip.

As a natural consequence of WMF’s secrecy, people began to speculate. Given the deafening silence and secrecy, and the few leads, and the known existance of a relation that some consider relevant, some speculation focused on that particular person. Example diff

On 17 June 2019 21:53 JEissfeldt (WMF) defended WMF’s action: In Fram’s case, (…) we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step. diff. This mention of the reminders, which can only refer to the communication about the LH-related edits, only intensified the speculation around LH.

The commotion led LH to retire from Wikipedia. — Adhemar (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly clear, if Fram v Laura Hale had ended up at ARBCOM, Laura Hale would have lost badly.

Her work was poor, there were clear signs of paid editing, "close paraphrasing" is wikispeak for plagiarism, tons of copy/paste article with copied errors, and phenomenally poor work quality stemming from laziness, etc, etc, etc.
Additionally, her grifting around travel grants, her coup attempt at WPAU, and her continuous bad faith attempts to evade reasonable scrutiny on her work would have come bubbling to the surface, which would likely have resulted in her indef block.

It's only through the WMF's Gestapo that Laura Hale can play her power card, Maria Sefidari, Chair of the Board of Trustees.
It's only through secret evidence and a complicit bureaucracy that she can hide her hand in these dealings.

[Osborne]

Some interesting bits on Jehochman's talk page/quote]
In response to:

I can’t believe we suffered through eight weeks of misery only to arrive at this sad little pile of scurrilous poo. Jehochman 10:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I remember a similarly aged "editor in good standing", who loved to use the world scurrilous, when he wanted to be convincing, while saying "shit". Tho he used the word "bull puckey" I thought that was a traded sock account, but not Jehochman's... Hmmm, probably not.

Anyway, surprising that such eloquence hides an inability to distinguish childish complaints from constructive criticism. I've seen only better from Jehochman until now.

[Jans Hammer]

I think it should be a condition of employment that no WMF staff should edit WP in their own name. In the wider interests of WP:INVOLVED. If they edit as anon., their route to dispute resolution is per the standard community processes.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

That wikipedia-health list is preposterous. He just pretty much copied and pasted the ANI complaint and added inappropriate commentary afterwards that either described what Fram did in as poor a light as possible or, in some cases, suggests that the actual content wasn't even read. Fram's a dick, but this Aron Manning is too lazy/unable to document these instances in a manner that reflects the achievement of functional literacy.

(If, of course, this is in fact Manning and not someone else).

[eagle]

At some point, the question of bad faith reporting of Fram to T&S will have to be broached.
An independent evaluation of the reporting incidents and the motivations of the reporters needs to be done.

This will inevitably lead to questions of competence and corruption inside the WMF and the Board.

Perhaps Arbcom should pose questions to each WMF Staff member who investigated Fram or later processed the office action. 1) Were you aware that of the original complaint that launched the Fram investigation? 2) Were you aware of the relationship between the original complainant and a WMF Board member? 3) Did you feel political pressure regarding how you handled the complaint? 4) Did you investigate the pre-complaint interactions between Fram and the complainant to determine if Fram's actions were based on valid concerns about improper editing?

[mendaliv]

Anyway, surprising that such eloquence hides an inability to distinguish childish complaints from constructive criticism. I've seen only better from Jehochman until now.

Jehochman was in the running for worst arguments earlier in the WP:FRAM days. BU Rob13 ended up blowing him out of the water though, and Jehochman himself started making much more sensible arguments.

My main objection here is that I don’t think “scurrilous” really applies. I’d describe the public evidence as Mickey Mouse more than anything.

[mendaliv]

At some point, the question of bad faith reporting of Fram to T&S will have to be broached.
An independent evaluation of the reporting incidents and the motivations of the reporters needs to be done.

This will inevitably lead to questions of competence and corruption inside the WMF and the Board.

Perhaps Arbcom should pose questions to each WMF Staff member who investigated Fram or later processed the office action. 1) Were you aware that of the original complaint that launched the Fram investigation? 2) Were you aware of the relationship between the original complainant and a WMF Board member? 3) Did you feel political pressure regarding how you handled the complaint? 4) Did you investigate the pre-complaint interactions between Fram and the complainant to determine if Fram's actions were based on valid concerns about improper editing?

My god I would love to see this case set precedent for the Committee or parties being able to depose WMF employees, especially officers and directors. It would make every last bit of the outrage that this has been worthwhile.

[Vigilant]

At some point, the question of bad faith reporting of Fram to T&S will have to be broached.
An independent evaluation of the reporting incidents and the motivations of the reporters needs to be done.

This will inevitably lead to questions of competence and corruption inside the WMF and the Board.

Perhaps Arbcom should pose questions to each WMF Staff member who investigated Fram or later processed the office action. 1) Were you aware that of the original complaint that launched the Fram investigation? 2) Were you aware of the relationship between the original complainant and a WMF Board member? 3) Did you feel political pressure regarding how you handled the complaint? 4) Did you investigate the pre-complaint interactions between Fram and the complainant to determine if Fram's actions were based on valid concerns about improper editing?

My god I would love to see this case set precedent for the Committee or parties being able to depose WMF employees, especially officers and directors. It would make every last bit of the outrage that this has been worthwhile.

If they refuse, decide by ARBCOM motion to strip all WMF accounts on en.wp of all rights and indef block them with talk page access and email removed.

Then extend the Standard Offer to each of them.

[mendaliv]

At some point, the question of bad faith reporting of Fram to T&S will have to be broached.
An independent evaluation of the reporting incidents and the motivations of the reporters needs to be done.

This will inevitably lead to questions of competence and corruption inside the WMF and the Board.

Perhaps Arbcom should pose questions to each WMF Staff member who investigated Fram or later processed the office action. 1) Were you aware that of the original complaint that launched the Fram investigation? 2) Were you aware of the relationship between the original complainant and a WMF Board member? 3) Did you feel political pressure regarding how you handled the complaint? 4) Did you investigate the pre-complaint interactions between Fram and the complainant to determine if Fram's actions were based on valid concerns about improper editing?

My god I would love to see this case set precedent for the Committee or parties being able to depose WMF employees, especially officers and directors. It would make every last bit of the outrage that this has been worthwhile.

If they refuse, decide by ARBCOM motion to strip all WMF accounts on en.wp of all rights and indef block them with talk page access and email removed.

Then extend the Standard Offer to each of them.

That would be glorious.

[Vigilant]

@Worm That Turned: So the identity "slip" preventing us from knowing the substance of the accusations and shielding the accusers from the checks and balances of an open trial was exposing an editor who had a several paragraph screed against Fram at the top of their talk page? Do you personally believe that is a reasonable concern on the part of T&S? EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone is going to have to talk about Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari and T&S eventually.

You guys look stupid trying to avoid the topic.


The cat is now firmly out of the bag.
Either acknowledge this and have an honest conversation or lose whatever tiny shred of credibility you still have and still have to have that conversation in a week or two.

[Vigilant]

Well, well, well...

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

Proposal by Adhemar

Proposed additional remedy
In addition to the proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies by NewYorkBrad I would add an additional fifth proposed remedy, to be added between NewYorkBrad’s third and fourth, with a WP:BOOMERANG-of-sorts reminder to WMF.

WMF reminded

3bis) The Wikimedia Foundation and its Trust & Security team are reminded that while our policies and guidelines are not carved in stone and may well be improved going forward, simply replacing them with dictatorial impositions of seamingly arbitrary, unappealable sanctions, unsupported by arguments, without fair hearing or due process, for undisclosed allegations which are never explained to the accused and against which the accused can therefor not defend themself, is not conducive to the creation of a welcoming, non-toxic environment.

The wording is open for improvement, if found too strong (or too weak) (or otherwise).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. (Even though the text supposes that the Wikimedia Foundation and its Trust & Security care about creating of a welcoming, non-toxic environment, which is something I am no longer entirely sure of.) — Adhemar (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Better be careful WMF.
If these peasants find their courage, they may hunt you next.

[Earthy Astringent]

Laura Hale is a serial grifter in wiki space.
Fram had the unmitigated gall to call out her unmitigated creation of garbage on en.wp.
Laura went after him like she went after every single other person who has ever thwarted her intentions.
Usually, Laura gets found out and kicked to the curb.
This time, Laura had air cover by being married to the Chair of the Board of Directors of the WMF.

The WMF is a charity. I’m no expert (not that it will stop me from opining) but I’m almost certain there are laws that have been bent, if not broken here.

[mendaliv]

Laura Hale is a serial grifter in wiki space.
Fram had the unmitigated gall to call out her unmitigated creation of garbage on en.wp.
Laura went after him like she went after every single other person who has ever thwarted her intentions.
Usually, Laura gets found out and kicked to the curb.
This time, Laura had air cover by being married to the Chair of the Board of Directors of the WMF.

The WMF is a charity. I’m no expert (not that it will stop me from opining) but I’m almost certain there are laws that have been bent, if not broken here.

Maybe. It does sound like there’s self-dealing going on.