Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Poetlister]

If Arbcom were a properly trained and resourced body, like a Congressional committee, they would have a lot of good questions for the WMF. Whether the WMF would answer, or give full and honest answers, is another issue since of course Arbcom has no powers to subpoena or demand evidence on oath. All that can be done is to weigh the evidence intelligently and make reasonable assumptions, and come to a fair and unbiased conclusion. Will even that much happen?

[Randy from Boise]

If Arbcom were a properly trained and resourced body, like a Congressional committee, they would have a lot of good questions for the WMF. Whether the WMF would answer, or give full and honest answers, is another issue since of course Arbcom has no powers to subpoena or demand evidence on oath. All that can be done is to weigh the evidence intelligently and make reasonable assumptions, and come to a fair and unbiased conclusion. Will even that much happen?

Actually, the other thing that could be done is they could all quit.

RfB

[Vigilant]

The above proposal does not recognize the importance of "related matters." Reading through the complaints, it appears that Fram noticed a pattern where a number of biographies were produced with the subjects having identical birthdates. Because the editor produced all of the articles in rapid succession with much in common, Fram's review (and asking for a verification of the birthdates) should not be viewed as wikihounding. So, please consider adding "can objectively be viewed as related" to the paragraph as one extra factor. Hlevy2 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Are we going to hear more "Leave Brittney Alone..." wails from the stands now?

Grifters gonna grift.

[Poetlister]

If Arbcom were a properly trained and resourced body, like a Congressional committee, they would have a lot of good questions for the WMF. Whether the WMF would answer, or give full and honest answers, is another issue since of course Arbcom has no powers to subpoena or demand evidence on oath. All that can be done is to weigh the evidence intelligently and make reasonable assumptions, and come to a fair and unbiased conclusion. Will even that much happen?

Actually, the other thing that could be done is they could all quit.

RfB

That's not a bad idea, though of course it wouldn't help Fram much.

[Vigilant]

My summary of this case

I am surprised by ArbCom's willingness to continue to case despite posting no substantial evidence, and skipping over the most substantial evidence that's already been discussed numerous times on wiki and which was included in my request for arbitration. In my opinion this case is about getting into a conflict with "the wrong person". The heart of the case can be understood by looking at three links:

The beginning I am sure that DYK reviewers will be extra-alert to the possibility of problems with any further articles she nominates
The middle This is a budget request for two Wikimedians (Raystorm and LauraHale) to attend the 2013 IPC Alpine Skiiing World Championships at La Molina, Spain.
Raystorm was elected chair of the WMF Board on July 19th, 2018. [1]
The end You were asked in September 2017 to disengage in admin actions related to me. You were asked in September 2017 to stop commenting on my talk page and you are being asked again in February 2018. ...please contact James Alexander, Patrick Earley, Jan Eissfeldt or Sydney Poore, members of the WMF's Support and Safety team.
Here's the final straw: [2] That, my friends, is frustration boiling over, not a personal attack. It's frustration boiling over after an editor feels that they've been unfairly persecuted. We experienced editors have seen this happen many times. The target of harassment becomes frustrated and finally explodes.

This conflict appears to have blossomed from a bona fide disagreement about the importance of competing priorities: content quality versus community building and inclusiveness. We've long had that debate. Both views have merit and this debate should be resolved by open, civilize discussion, rather than by political clout. Fram appears to have been severely overmatched in terms of clout. I feel that Fram may have crossed the line between legitimate inspection of another editor's work and paying excessive attention to them. However, this line is fuzzy and different people might have different opinions. In general, we need to be more tolerant of different people, and different opinions. That's the heart of WP:AGF.

Before you ban me, I have had no access to confidential information nor have I given a promise of confidentiality to anybody related to this information. Moreover, I have not used my admin access to find these links. Any editor could find them. A member of ArbCom answered a question I emailed them to say that I am allow to post any public diffs I find, such as these. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The noose tightens.
At some point, we all know that the T&S 'report' will leak.
When it does, I expect fireworks.


From 'the middle'

Notes:
1. LauraHale is currently in Spain and will have been there for approximately six weeks prior to the start of the event. Her eventual travel back to Australia is not being requested. (LauraHale is willing to discuss offwiki why she is currently in Spain.)
2. Train travel to La Molina from Madrid will be paid for out of pocket by the participants.
3. The food budget is partial costs to make the event a bit more affordable.
4. The cost of the hotel is based on the media price for a double occupancy room as organized by the event organisers.[1]
5. If the committee decides to only fund one person, it should be LauraHale. I can later hook up with her and she can relay her experiences. It will not be as good as first-hand experience, but she has the know-how and I don't. The difference between funding only one of us or both is 10 euros a day for food and 25 euros a night for accommodation, though.

Supporting documents: London HOPAU Report, IPC Nor-Am Cup Report.
[1] http://www.paralympic.org/Events/LaMoli ... reditation

Well, it can't get much clearer than that.


From 'the beginning', who are Laura Hale's defenders?

* Demiurge1000, Daniel Giles Shimmin, noted friend of insider James Forrester, now SanFranBanned for being a filthy pedo.
* Hawkeye7, Ross Mallett, Laura's partner in grift crime and landlord.
* Prioryman, Chris Owens, disgraced Gibraltarpedia fool.
* Flufflernutter, Karen Brown, now in WMF's Trust & Safety Gestapo.

With friends like these ...


EDIT:
I had someone else mixed up with DCoetzee.
I apologize to the person whose name I posted earlier.
It was an honest mistake, but it was mine and I'm sorry.
Thank you to the person who found that.

[Anroth]

Well if anyone with a conscience on Arbcom or at the WMF wants to forward the T&S document to me, I will be happy to post it. Everywhere.

[Jans Hammer]

A spat! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... iceourtesy notice[/link]

I've posted this [1], which I am quite sure is not a violation of policy. However, if you somehow disagree, I will remove it and go publish my commentary elsewhere. Keep in mind I am a named editor and any action against me that improperly casts aspersions at my character will have real world consequences for me. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 2:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Jehochman, This is possibly the most hypocritcal comment I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. WormTT(talk) 6:28 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Great. I won't talk with you further because you don't want to fix anything. You just seem to want to flex your powers, and I just can't stand that. Jehochman Talk 8:48 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Jehochman, You came to me to warn me about casting aspersions against a named editor, were I to react to your casting aspersions against two named editors. Can you not see the hypocrisy? I came to engage with you directly when you were expressing your upset yesterday, on the relative privacy of your talk page. I'm sorry to see you have misunderstood me and I hope that we will be able to resolve this some time in the future, but I'm afraid at the moment, I've got other stuff to deal with. WormTT(talk) 9:30 pm, Today (UTC+1)
I wasn't intending to cast aspersions. If there's a better way to present the issues that concerned me, I'm all ears. In addition to my offer to remove the content, I will amend it, if appropriate. My sense of the Fram case is that we need to lay the (publicly visible) cards on the table so that all the parties can understand how their actions contributed to this highly disruptive incident and maybe learn to do better. I do not want to punish anybody or harm anybody's reputation. Jehochman Talk 9:59 pm, Today (UTC+1)

[mendaliv]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

[Vigilant]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

But if they say 'libel' or 'slander' then they get WP:NLT thrown at them.

On en.wp, 'casting aspersions' is a power phrase, like 'wingardium leviosa'.

[mendaliv]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

But if they say 'libel' or 'slander' then they get WP:NLT thrown at them.

On en.wp, 'casting aspersions' is a power phrase, like 'wingardium leviosa'.

[Jans Hammer]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

But if they say 'libel' or 'slander' then they get WP:NLT thrown at them.

On en.wp, 'casting aspersions' is a power phrase, like 'wingardium leviosa'.

If only we had the summoning charm. Accio 70 page report

[Vigilant]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

But if they say 'libel' or 'slander' then they get WP:NLT thrown at them.

On en.wp, 'casting aspersions' is a power phrase, like 'wingardium leviosa'.

If only we had the summoning charm. Accio 70 page report

One would suspect that the only phrase T&S knows is 'cruciatus'.

[Moral Hazard]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

[Osborne]

Over a dozen people complained about Fram to T&S. They looked at his behaviour across multiple areas, against editors, against Arbcom and it's members and against WMF staff. It's not about one person, not by a long shot. WormTT(talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This somewhat eases my fear that the 70 page document is the one already posted at: https://this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/

[Vigilant]

I pointed that out earlier obliquely Vigilant. Its clear from their statements that they dont think any actual case raised against Fram would go anywhere, and thats either because they *know* ENWP doesnt have the same standards as them, or they know Arbcom will not ban someone for what it looks like at this point is essentially revenge editing.

The plus's of going to T&S is that they wont go through all parties like an arbcom case, I am guessing whoever squealed doesnt want an arbcom case. Can you imagine a LauraHale vs Fram arbcom case? That is going to drag up so much dirt that the entire WiR could be fucked.

Now what appears to be a secret WMF-imposed interaction ban is in the open, it will be interesting to see what happens.

Prescient.

Jehochman, that message of support is fairly meaningless when you insist on bringing public arbcom cases about the two editors, linking them together and implying that they were part of some conspiracy with T&S to ban Fram (which is what your recent post implies). Over a dozen people complained about Fram to T&S. They looked at his behaviour across multiple areas, against editors, against Arbcom and it's members and against WMF staff. It's not about one person, not by a long shot. WormTT(talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Q: How many of the complainants were WMF employees/contractors or their spouses?

[Vigilant]

So much hand wringing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... n_the_room

So little courage...

[mendaliv]

Jehochman, that message of support is fairly meaningless when you insist on bringing public arbcom cases about the two editors, linking them together and implying that they were part of some conspiracy with T&S to ban Fram (which is what your recent post implies). Over a dozen people complained about Fram to T&S. They looked at his behaviour across multiple areas, against editors, against Arbcom and it's members and against WMF staff. It's not about one person, not by a long shot. WormTT(talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Q: How many of the complainants were WMF employees/contractors or their spouses?

The real problem is that there’s an assumption, which can’t be challenged due to the secrecy of the document, that many or any of the other 11 complaints not having to do with LH actually triggered the ban. What the Committee is looking at is not just evidence, but argument, and argument that was prepared in anticipation of arbitration. That they could have justified their action because of other complaints is interesting but not exactly the point. We’re concerned about corruption, as well as whether these decisions are being made on justifiable grounds, not whether they can be justified after the fact.

After all, you can justify banning just about anyone that’s been on enwiki more than a couple years if you dig hard enough.

[Osborne]

I am surprised by ArbCom's willingness to continue to case despite posting no substantial evidence, and skipping over the most substantial evidence that's already been discussed numerous times on wiki and which was included in my request for arbitration.

LauraHale defends herself in 2018: [23] The fact that this has to happen should have been the point where Fram was de-sysopped. We failed LauraHale as a community.

A Worm is more spinous than that.

[MrErnie]

WormTT seems to be the only Arb publicly participating in this case. Where are the rest? He needs some help.

[Osborne]

LauraHale defends herself in 2018: [23] The fact that this has to happen should have been the point where Fram was de-sysopped. We failed LauraHale as a community.

Anyone, who would post this at the workshop?
Meh. There. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... m/Workshop[/link]
Then wait for Jeho's response.

[mendaliv]

WormTT seems to be the only Arb publicly participating in this case. Where are the rest? He needs some help.

He's honestly the the only arb publicly participating in anything at the moment. We were talking about this elsewhere, that it looks like WTT has become the frontman/spokesman for the whole Committee. I think it has to do with how badly some arbs got savaged (particularly PMC) in the WT:ACN thread about Ritchie333.

[Vigilant]

The evidence portion of the case has closed and the workshop is now open.

Not getting the result they need to get, ARBCOM is trying to insert new evidence into the case at the end...

Seriously, guy, we can see you doing it. Everyone can.

[mendaliv]

The evidence portion of the case has closed and the workshop is now open.

Not getting the result they need to get, ARBCOM is trying to insert new evidence into the case at the end...

Seriously, guy, we can see you doing it. Everyone can.

Yet another case of inadequate formality damaging the credibility of the Committee. When evidence is closed, it needs to stay closed absent a compelling reason why it needs to be reopened. And if it needs to be reopened, then it needs to be kept open for more evidence.

[SLW80]

All right. Hi there. Vigilant linked some of my LiveJournal posts about the whole Laura Hale thing and then took the time to track me down asking me about how things went down eleven years ago.

I don't know any of you fine folk, I edit Wikipedia maybe once every six years and usually it's minor, I have no idea what half or more of your terminology means, I've picked up a few acronyms here or there reading this cluster, but mostly I'm just an outsider who happened to run across this woman several times in various circles over the past twenty years. (Not ten, darlings; twenty. She's been up to her crap for twenty.)

Just as a disclosure, I'm a lefty, female, gay, married, a feminist. So you can be certain that this is not stemming from me hating on her for being a woman.

Vigilant is correct in that she is a serial grifter, probably a sociopath and definitely a liar. She manipulates because that is her only way to make a living. She has spent the past twenty years sponging off of the brilliance of people with actual talent. I knew nothing solid about her when I got involved with her Fanhistory project beyond that she and I were both columnists for fanfiction.net. She did her best to get in close to Xing Li, the creator of the site. When that went awry by her playing victim over another staffer, she flounced to try to build a competitive website. (It didn't work, because she's incompetent.) She tried very hard to capitalize on fandom. Her Fanhistory wiki was a damn nightmare; that was how I managed to interface with her personally, but didn't know that she was the absolute disaster that she was. (I'm a medium sized fish in a very large ocean, and I was back then, too.) I tried to help with that disaster of a wiki, ultimately putting in a lot of time and listening to her get paranoid and weird in IMs, and it culminated in her banning me. A friend and I stole her site for a few hours for the lulz, because why the hell not. She then stalked this friend IRL.

Fandom imploded on her when she doxxed astolat, who is behind the Organization for Transformative Works, which includes Fanlore and Archive of Our Own (which just won a Hugo!), and who Hale saw as her main competitor. OTW had no drive to profit off of fandom, but Laura did. She wanted to sell Fanhistory for 500K.

https://sl-walker.livejournal.com/tag/f ... y%3Aexpose

There's the tag on my old LJ for everything I've got collected myself.

TL;DR: She has a pattern. She gets close to people who have some spark of brilliance OR some kind of major influence and she uses them to within an inch of her life. She's not good enough to make her own way, so she goes after those who are.

Then, when it blows up -- and it always does eventually -- she cries victim, despite reams of evidence, and most of the time slinks away to grift somewhere else. And because she burns a lot of bridges and hurts a lot of people in the process, there is ample evidence on the internet about it. (And check Dreamwidth, too, because her history is surely more documented there than LJ these days, thanks to the migration. Pay for a months's service, use the site search feature, you'll find a ton of crap I'll bet.) She's been at this for twenty years, and this latest mess doesn't surprise me in the least.

Dunno if any of that helps you, given apparently she's managed to actually land herself on a Big Site by attaching herself to someone influential, but I did want to say that Vigilant is correct. She is an unmitigated disaster for anyone who makes the mistake of getting tangled up with her.

[Jans Hammer]

.... and thanks!!

[mendaliv]

Big

[SLW80]

Good luck, guys. Sounds like she's got herself a comfortable spot right now, and she'll cling to it as long as she can.

[C&B]

Interesting news SWL80! Thank you

[Poetlister]

A spat! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... iceourtesy notice[/link]

It's good to see an Arb living up to his responsibilities. Good for WTT.

[Poetlister]

Q: How many of the complainants were WMF employees/contractors or their spouses?

Why confine it to them or their spouses? Nepotism covers other relatives!

[Poetlister]

WormTT seems to be the only Arb publicly participating in this case. Where are the rest? He needs some help.

Maybe they have less backbone than a worm?

[Vigilant]

On a related note, I do see it as a shame that less evidence was submitted by the community than I'd hoped. For example, your timelines regarding this case you are referring to included a comment that happened in 2018 and the statement " The fact that this has to happen should have been the point where Fram was de-sysopped. We failed LauraHale as a community." I wonder what's changed in your opinion? If it's simply that the community's evidence is lacking, there was something you could have done about that. WormTT(talk) 06:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow.
Just wow.

A judge publicly complaining that there isn't enough evidence to convict the respondent.

[Vigilant]

And now it's out in the open.

I'l summarize my replies to the above.

At first glance I assume T&S was acting properly. That's always been my default assumption because I like the people there and like what they have done in the past.
It eventually came to my attention that T&S was operating under a conflict of interest. They were acting as judge when they should have recused. The were judging accusations made by their indirect boss's close friend, and they were causing a huge disruption.
WJB, I hope you decide to return, but I felt then and feel now that using sysop access to protest was an error. I hoped you'd revert yourself to avoid getting sanctioned. Ultimately you weren't, so this point is moot.
I looked at the Laura Hale situation and did not like the fact that she felt severely harassed. That matter should have come before ArbCom when it happened and been dealt with. Both sides have legitimate concerns.
T&S handed off to ArbCom, put only partially. ArbCom can't rely on the evidence because they can't reveal it, and it is redacted.
ArbCom's public summary is insufficient to justify anything more than time served, if that. It is just bits and pieces of non-essential evidence. They ought to focus on the main substance, which none of us but T&S know for sure.
ArbCom need to know the identity of accusers because that context is essential to seeing whether there are motives or conflicts of interest.
I believe Maria when she says she wasn't involved. Unfortunately, that doesn't clear up the conflict of interest. Her staff will inevitably have their judgement biased because they are much closer to her than to Fram.
I hope this helps. Worm, if you get tired of me monopolizing your salon, just say so and I will depart. Jehochman Talk 11:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

T&S was rather forced to pass it to Arbcom, and Arbcom was rather forced to accept. However, I'm not sure either is particularly qualified to handle the situation. The community hasn't sent a lot of evidence in - and I've no reason to think that would have happened earlier, or indeed for any other situation. You said before that Laura "was" harassed, yet now you seem to have dropped to "felt" harassed. If the former, then T&S was justified in their action - the issue becomes the conflict. But who else can deal with it? The community hasn't (you've stated the community has failed).Is Fram WP:UNBLOCKABLE? This is of course, based on the premise that there was harassment, which your earlier statements were crystal clear on, the community evidence is less clear on that fact. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

So, ARBCOM has a 70 page document from T&S that they can't share with anyone.

They are now in the process of attempting to do parallel construction and failing badly.

It's been two months since the T&S emergency ban on en.wp was thrown down.

ARBCOM is trying, desperately, to add new evidence from their botched parallel construction effort into the case AFTER the evidence phase has CLOSED in order to find some way, any way, to come to a conclusion that satisfies T&S.

Fram's guilt was set in stone prior to the case starting.
ARBCOM isn't in the arbitration business here.
They are wearing the executioner's hood and it becomes clearer and clearer to the community every day.

The WMF has materially damaged the institution of ARBCOM by suborning them into this fiasco.

This will not end well.
I almost feel bad for the poor fuckers on ARBCOM right now.

[Kumioko]

A spat! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... iceourtesy notice[/link]

It's good to see an Arb living up to his responsibilities. Good for WTT.

Well Jehochman has had a long term pattern of abuse on the project and has a reputation for being a weasel. How he hasn't been drug to Arbcom at this point is limited to his ability to skirt the rules, within the rules and only abuse those that won't get him in trouble.

[Kumioko]

So, ARBCOM has a 70 page document from T&S that they can't share with anyone.

They are now in the process of attempting to do parallel construction and failing badly.

It's been two months since the T&S emergency ban on en.wp was thrown down.

ARBCOM is trying, desperately, to add new evidence from their botched parallel construction effort into the case AFTER the evidence phase has CLOSED in order to find some way, any way, to come to a conclusion that satisfies T&S.

Fram's guilt was set in stone prior to the case starting.
ARBCOM isn't in the arbitration business here.
They are wearing the executioner's hood and it becomes clearer and clearer to the community every day.

The WMF has materially damaged the institution of ARBCOM by suborning them into this fiasco.

This will not end well.
I almost feel bad for the poor fuckers on ARBCOM right now.

As WTT put it pretty bluntly on his talk page, banning Fram with public evidence is going to be a tough sell. He is also correct in saying (and I have said much the same thing) that arbcom should basically state at the end of the case that this is the T&S's decision and the Arbcom doesn't have the authority to overrule them. He does indicate (if I am reading the tea leaves correctly) that there is a pretty good chance the Arbcom is going to let him come back, perhaps desysop him and tell him to behave himself with time served. I personally think that would be a mistake, but it is possible.

[Anroth]

WormTT seems to be the only Arb publicly participating in this case. Where are the rest? He needs some help.

Maybe they have less backbone than a worm?

More likely a greater sense of self preservation.

[mendaliv]

He is also correct in saying (and I have said much the same thing) that arbcom should basically state at the end of the case that this is the T&S's decision and the Arbcom doesn't have the authority to overrule them.

Well I could write the workshop principle embodying this right now. It's simple:

#) The Arbitration Policy specifies that the Arbitration Committee lacks jurisdiction over actions of the Wikimedia Foundation. As a jurisdictional limitation, this means that the Committee may not analyze or pass judgment on these actions. This limitation cannot be waived by the Committee or by the Wikimedia Foundation.

This would be paired with a FoF:

#) The Wikimedia Foundation invited the Arbitration Committee to review Fram's ban by Office Action. Such a review would be contrary to the Arbitration Policy, which excludes from its jurisdiction actions by the Wikimedia Foundation. As neither the Arbitration Committee nor the Wikimedia Foundation may waive this jurisdictional requirement, the Committee finds that it cannot rule upon the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Additionally, the Arbitration Committee finds that because the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation lie outside its jurisdiction, it cannot utilize information or evidence provided by the Wikimedia Foundation in the adjudication of this case.

(the last sentence is a bit of a stretch and might need some rethinking, but this generally interprets the "jurisdictional" limitation in the arbitration policy as effectively being subject-matter jurisdiction—dealing with the Committee's power to act on particular types of cases.)

A companion principle:

#) The scope of arbitration in the Arbitration Policy requires that there be a dispute that is not capable of resolution by the community. The Arbitration Committee finds that embodied in this and other policies that the Committee may not offer advisory opinions or rule on matters which are moot.

And an accompanying FoF:

#) The Arbitration Committee finds that it lacks the jurisdiction to overturn Fram's ban by the Wikimedia Foundation. As such, any ruling by this Committee on the propriety of the ban would be moot. Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee finds that it lacks the jurisdiction to give advice or analysis to the Wikimedia Foundation on the propriety of Fram's ban on the basis of the information or evidence provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, as any opinion rendered by the Committee under such circumstances would be an advisory opinion.

If WTT is looking for a way to punt this case, jurisdictional grounds is the way to go.

[Osborne]

As WTT put it pretty bluntly on his talk page, banning Fram with public evidence is going to be a tough sell. He is also correct in saying (and I have said much the same thing) that arbcom should basically state at the end of the case that this is the T&S's decision and the Arbcom doesn't have the authority to overrule them. He does indicate (if I am reading the tea leaves correctly) that there is a pretty good chance the Arbcom is going to let him come back, perhaps desysop him and tell him to behalf with time served. I personally think that would be a mistake, but it is possible.

This opinion won't be popular in the vocal circles of enwp. Those, who have seen the community culture on wp, and left in disbelief, will understand.
The meaning of the word "civility" is skewed to legitimize the behavior of the leading group. Wishing the demise of someone is deemed uncivil, but not much more. Practically there are no "civility" standards - this resulted on the wmf's push for a Code of Conduct. The conduct that is accepted and endorsed on WP would be unacceptable in a workplace, where effective work done is crucial for the survival of the company. The constant ad hominem attacks, wikilawyering, blaming and name-calling would doom any community, that creates a product.

In the Fram workshop comments this was called "minor uncivility". It is minor compared to wishing one's demise, indeed. It should be forgiven once, maybe a few times, if the abuser is reminded to adjust his conduct. "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." (WP:ADMINCOND)
The first failure of the community was to not call out this behavior, when it was reported, thus letting it repeat, and become a pattern. Now the community tends to overlook this pattern, too. "consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools" (WP:ADMINCOND). The previous cases pointed out, that Fram made bad blocks, and committed "minor incivilities". Many drips in a glass, that has now overflown. If there was any accountability on WP, this would be a clear reason to desysop, and allow a second rfa a year later.

Regarding the ban my view takes into account only the public evidence. Based on that I believe that the T&S had only a blunt tool, and used it, resulting in an overly long ban. A shorter cooldown block would be more just, say 1 month. This would be time served by now, if Fram understood the issues with his conduct, and promised to be more mindful, as he promised after his recent bad block. This is not the case, as Fram's venting and comments on meta show he believes his conduct issues have been properly handled by the community, and he has nothing to learn from this case. He's still criticizing with uncivil comments the ArbCom and those who question his conduct, instead of showing he can improve. To protect the community from this negative behavior, and give him time for introspection, he should be blocked for at least a month after the case is closed, until he shows positive signs of better behavior. Of course non-public evidence might change the length of the wiki-break.

[Poetlister]

Wow.
Just wow.

A judge publicly complaining that there isn't enough evidence to convict the respondent.

No, he's complaining of the lack of evidence on either side. Still, he shouldn't do that either.

[Poetlister]

A spat! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... iceourtesy notice[/link]

It's good to see an Arb living up to his responsibilities. Good for WTT.

Well Jehochman has had a long term pattern of abuse on the project and has a reputation for being a weasel. How he hasn't been drug to Arbcom at this point is limited to his ability to skirt the rules, within the rules and only abuse those that won't get him in trouble.

He'll slip up eventually. Too many people are watching him, waiting to pounce.

[Osborne]

Well Jehochman has had a long term pattern of abuse on the project and has a reputation for being a weasel.

Finally someone calls out his weaseling

Jehochman, I confess to be utterly baffled by your shifting stance on this matter. You have expressed totally irreconcilable positions. What has changed since you told me - in stark terms - that I should reverse my resysop of Fram because "The ban is absolutely justified" based on your own review of the history. Absolutely justified? But now it isn't and Fram is the victim of a WMF plot? How can you possibly explain such a strange volte-face? And if your review of the history then made you conclude that a ban was justified, how can you now criticise T&S/WMF for reaching the same conclusion? WJBscribe (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion may change as more facts become known. What I don’t like is the lack of transparency. ...

That explains... while flinging a red herring.

[10920]

Wow.
Just wow.

A judge publicly complaining that there isn't enough evidence to convict the respondent.

No, he's complaining of the lack of evidence on either side. Still, he shouldn't do that either.

Either side? The way they framed it was basically to request that anyone who had an axe to grind with Fram, send stuff in to them.

Then they didn't get as much as they'd hoped.

Now they're between a rock and a hard place.

[Kumioko]

Well Jehochman has had a long term pattern of abuse on the project and has a reputation for being a weasel.

Finally someone calls out his weaseling

Jehochman, I confess to be utterly baffled by your shifting stance on this matter. You have expressed totally irreconcilable positions. What has changed since you told me - in stark terms - that I should reverse my resysop of Fram because "The ban is absolutely justified" based on your own review of the history. Absolutely justified? But now it isn't and Fram is the victim of a WMF plot? How can you possibly explain such a strange volte-face? And if your review of the history then made you conclude that a ban was justified, how can you now criticise T&S/WMF for reaching the same conclusion? WJBscribe (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion may change as more facts become known. What I don’t like is the lack of transparency. ...

That explains... while flinging a red herring.

That's 2 admins in 2 days calling Jehochman out on his shenanigans. I sincerely hope an arbcom case for cause is brought up soon. I'll have some time this week, maybe I'll draft something up and post it here summarization this degenerates actions.

[eagle]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

How can telling the simple unadorned truth be "casting aspersions?" People don't know the facts, because they have been carefully concealed, to the point that an admin went back and deleted the last part of a GA review of a Laural Hale-nominated article and then locked the page.

When people get into the Laura Hale wikihounding debate, the assumption is that the woman must be the victim and the man the aggressor. The further unstated assumption is that to the extent that Laura Hale overreacted to the stress of being corrected or frustrated it was because the wikihounding was incredibly severe. However, if you look back at her history going back to high school, college, then her work in Fan History, you will see that this is all a pre-existing condition (not properly covered by the Wikipedia mental health plan assume good faith policy.) Aside from a pattern of bullying people, and of taking advantage of naïve volunteers (such as Bill william compton (T-C-L), LH became obsessed with quantified productivity in order to demonstrate what she was delivering to her funders. So, reports to the Australian Paralympic Committee, the WMF, and other groups included how many DYK, GA, FA and how many page views were associated with them. Her grant applications included these number as if she was a ad agency reporting back to a publicity-seeking client. This in turn, put the volunteer reviewers of DYK, GA and FA under pressure to meet her goals and milestones.

LH had many highly placed enablers along the way, including Hawkeye7 who provided housing to a foreign graduate student on a rent free basis as a result became invested in her smooth sailing on-wiki, without disclosing the relationship; John Vandenburg, who was a cosponsor for the $110,000 grant application to the Australian Paralympic Committee; and Raystorm (T-C-L) who bailed her out of the problem of mistranslating biographical materials that resulted in terribly inaccurate BLPs. Instead of really mentoring LH, she just promised to provide political cover for six months. If you read what LH and her allies have written in all of these painful disputes (and their attacking, defensive tone) and then look at what Fram wrote in the same disputes, it is clear who was the aggressor and who was the victim. Give all of the other political devices that LH has deployed in her life-long history of political infighting, it should come as no surprise that she would try to weaponize T&S against her enemy as well.

[Vigilant]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

How can telling the simple unadorned truth be "casting aspersions?" People don't know the facts, because they have been carefully concealed, to the point that an admin went back and deleted the last part of a GA review of a Laural Hale-nominated article and then locked the page.

When people get into the Laura Hale wikihounding debate, the assumption is that the woman must be the victim and the man the aggressor. The further unstated assumption is that to the extent that Laura Hale overreacted to the stress of being corrected or frustrated it was because the wikihounding was incredibly severe. However, if you look back at her history going back to high school, college, then her work in Fan History, you will see that this is all a pre-existing condition (not properly covered by the Wikipedia mental health plan assume good faith policy.) Aside from a pattern of bullying people, and of taking advantage of naïve volunteers (such as Bill william compton (T-C-L), LH became obsessed with quantified productivity in order to demonstrate what she was delivering to her funders. So, reports to the Australian Paralympic Committee, the WMF, and other groups included how many DYK, GA, FA and how many page views were associated with them. Her grant applications included these number as if she was a ad agency reporting back to a publicity-seeking client. This in turn, put the volunteer reviewers of DYK, GA and FA under pressure to meet her goals and milestones.

LH had many highly placed enablers along the way, including Hawkeye7 who provided housing to a foreign graduate student on a rent free basis as a result became invested in her smooth sailing on-wiki, without disclosing the relationship; John Vandenburg, who was a cosponsor for the $110,000 grant application to the Australian Paralympic Committee; and Raystorm (T-C-L) who bailed her out of the problem of mistranslating biographical materials that resulted in terribly inaccurate BLPs. Instead of really mentoring LH, she just promised to provide political cover for six months. If you read what LH and her allies have written in all of these painful disputes (and their attacking, defensive tone) and then look at what Fram wrote in the same disputes, it is clear who was the aggressor and who was the victim. Give all of the other political devices that LH has deployed in her life-long history of political infighting, it should come as no surprise that she would try to weaponize T&S against her enemy as well.

[SLW80]

I just wish people would stop saying "casting aspersions" every ten seconds.

How can telling the simple unadorned truth be "casting aspersions?" People don't know the facts, because they have been carefully concealed, to the point that an admin went back and deleted the last part of a GA review of a Laural Hale-nominated article and then locked the page.

When people get into the Laura Hale wikihounding debate, the assumption is that the woman must be the victim and the man the aggressor. The further unstated assumption is that to the extent that Laura Hale overreacted to the stress of being corrected or frustrated it was because the wikihounding was incredibly severe. However, if you look back at her history going back to high school, college, then her work in Fan History, you will see that this is all a pre-existing condition (not properly covered by the Wikipedia mental health plan assume good faith policy.) Aside from a pattern of bullying people, and of taking advantage of naïve volunteers (such as Bill william compton (T-C-L), LH became obsessed with quantified productivity in order to demonstrate what she was delivering to her funders. So, reports to the Australian Paralympic Committee, the WMF, and other groups included how many DYK, GA, FA and how many page views were associated with them. Her grant applications included these number as if she was a ad agency reporting back to a publicity-seeking client. This in turn, put the volunteer reviewers of DYK, GA and FA under pressure to meet her goals and milestones.

LH had many highly placed enablers along the way, including Hawkeye7 who provided housing to a foreign graduate student on a rent free basis as a result became invested in her smooth sailing on-wiki, without disclosing the relationship; John Vandenburg, who was a cosponsor for the $110,000 grant application to the Australian Paralympic Committee; and Raystorm (T-C-L) who bailed her out of the problem of mistranslating biographical materials that resulted in terribly inaccurate BLPs. Instead of really mentoring LH, she just promised to provide political cover for six months. If you read what LH and her allies have written in all of these painful disputes (and their attacking, defensive tone) and then look at what Fram wrote in the same disputes, it is clear who was the aggressor and who was the victim. Give all of the other political devices that LH has deployed in her life-long history of political infighting, it should come as no surprise that she would try to weaponize T&S against her enemy as well.

That's all really well said, and absolutely in line with her behavior throughout her time in fandom. That is exactly the same thing she's always done. She's quick to call harassment, but then again, abusers often accuse their victims of what they themselves have done. And every single time, it turns out that what she calls harassment was people trying to protect themselves and each other from her manipulations and schemes.

I got no idea who Fram is. Maybe he's a total asshole. But I do know Laura Hale, and nothing that she says can ever, ever be taken at face value. If she calls something harassment, you absolutely must do a full investigation with actual verifiable sources and evidence, because she has falsely accused good and innocent people of this in the past and it pays her such dividends that she will continue to do so with every new community she infiltrates.

[Midsize Jake]

That's all really well said, and absolutely in line with her behavior throughout her time in fandom. That is exactly the same thing she's always done. She's quick to call harassment, but then again, abusers often accuse their victims of what they themselves have done. And every single time, it turns out that what she calls harassment was people trying to protect themselves and each other from her manipulations and schemes.

I guess what I'm wondering about is the extent to which the Wikipedia (and especially, WMF) folks should have known about her in advance. Is it fair to say there isn't a lot of overlap between the fan-fiction writing community, which Laura Hale tried to exploit/monetize (not to mention out), and what we might call the fan-information community (or communities) that Fandom.com caters to?

I'm guessing there isn't, because as we all know, Fandom.com used to be called Wikia, and that's actually what most of us still call it. It's interesting because one could easily say that during the 2006-2008 timeframe, Laura Hale wanted to become the "Jimbo Wales of Fandom Wikis," only to have Jimbo Wales himself become the Jimbo Wales of Fandom Wikis a few years later (the name change was finalized in late 2016, but it wasn't exactly a sudden transformation).

If there were a lot of overlap, then maybe you'd expect information about her to filter over from the OTW (fan fiction) side to the Wikia/Wikipedia side at some point, but either it didn't, or they just didn't think it was worth worrying or caring about.

It also struck me that circa 2007, there were probably more people writing fan fiction on the internet than there were writing Wikipedia articles - maybe not changing (i.e., warring over) Wikipedia articles, but in terms of actually writing them as a personal hobby/pastime, that's a much smaller number, probably well under than 10,000 at any given time. Whereas with fan fiction, my guess would be there were significantly more than that back then, possibly well into six figures, and probably still more to this day. Maybe a lot more - hard numbers on this are hard to find, but I suspect there's a good chance that in 2007 there were probably well over 30,000 people writing Trekkie fan fiction alone.

The reason I mention this is that if you put aside the whole issue of mean-spirited exploitation, Laura Hale might well have had a quite lucrative business model back then in trying to monetize the fan-fiction community. But she failed, apparently all because of her truly remarkable capacity for rubbing people the wrong way.

[SLW80]

The reason I mention this is that if you put aside the whole issue of mean-spirited exploitation, Laura Hale might well have had a quite lucrative business model back then in trying to monetize the fan-fiction community. But she failed, apparently all because of her truly remarkable capacity for rubbing people the wrong way.

She wouldn't have. People less sociopathic than her have tried, and it's never, ever come to anything. Fanfic, unlike most other aspects of fandom, really is a gift culture. Trying to profit off of it back in the day would have brought down lawyers; trying to profit on it now would get you burned at the stake. There are authors -- E.L. James, anyone? -- who file the serial numbers off their stories and hit it big, but they actually had to produce something themselves in order to do that. Some outside agitator without talent, trying to monetize our work? We'd eat them alive.

Even our current grifters (we have a couple here or there even now) actually produce content. Laura never produced anything of merit. She liked to pretend to be a historian, but mostly she was a data scraper and scammer and wank bait.

I'm not sure what the overlap is between Wikipedia and fandom, if there is. It might be that WMF didn't bother to google her. It might have been that they did google her, but then blew it off with, "Oh, it's just a fandom thing." It's only been fairly recently that ficcers or fanartists have been 'cool', or at least not hiding in shadows, so maybe they did see her crap or mentions of her crap and just didn't think it was important. Or maybe she did the same thing to them that she did to me, when I asked her what happened -- after not knowing who she was aside a once-fellow FF.net columnist -- and lied her ass off about how everyone else was to blame.

I'm not sure. But fandom ran her out around 2010; that was the last time I've found where she had any kind of interaction in notable fannish spaces.

ETA: Meaning, I'm not sure when she wandered into your neck of the woods more seriously as a non-fannish editor, but I wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't long after that.

[Jans Hammer]

Did we know this - the coloured bit?
I'm not a fan of the legalese wording (it's regrettable that "jurisdiction" is already in ARBPOL), but this is a good principle. This case won't be reviewing or otherwise commenting on T&S' actions; but it will review Fram's conduct, and we have permission from the WMF for our decision to supersede theirs in this case. – Joe (talk) 9:08 am, Today (UTC+1)
As predicted weeks ago, "time served" is now inevitable IMO.