Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Anroth]

There's really only one way to read this:

The Trust and Safety of the Wikimedia Foundation attempted to manufacture voluminous evidence to falsely accuse Fram of harassment and thus ban him.
They did to protect Laura Hale, a serial grifter, who is the spouse of the Chair of the Board of Directors, from necessary scrutiny after her edits for pay were found to be damaging the encyclopedia.

I think this analysis fails to give due weight to the very considerable resentment felt by WMF staff against users who dare to criticise their competence, especially when those criticisms are cogent and well-founded. Since Fram has ben levelling very cogent well-founded criticism against some of the WMF's more egregious software flops for years now, my suggestion is that a lot of the secret evidence consists of WMF staff members saying "Fram pointed out how bad my code is and I'm really really upset now." I doubt it was necessary to manufacture evidence, just send a circular round the office asking if anyone had ever been upset by something Fram said. As for the motive you suggest, may be, maybe not.

No one at the WMF takes criticism very well. I was banned from Jimbo's talkpage for suggesting WMF developers were unable to code their way out of a paper bag.

The failure after failure of tech initiatives evidently left a sore spot with him.

[Vigilant]

There's really only one way to read this:

The Trust and Safety of the Wikimedia Foundation attempted to manufacture voluminous evidence to falsely accuse Fram of harassment and thus ban him.
They did to protect Laura Hale, a serial grifter, who is the spouse of the Chair of the Board of Directors, from necessary scrutiny after her edits for pay were found to be damaging the encyclopedia.

I think this analysis fails to give due weight to the very considerable resentment felt by WMF staff against users who dare to criticise their competence, especially when those criticisms are cogent and well-founded. Since Fram has ben levelling very cogent well-founded criticism against some of the WMF's more egregious software flops for years now, my suggestion is that a lot of the secret evidence consists of WMF staff members saying "Fram pointed out how bad my code is and I'm really really upset now." I doubt it was necessary to manufacture evidence, just send a circular round the office asking if anyone had ever been upset by something Fram said. As for the motive you suggest, may be, maybe not.

That's certainly a fair point.

However, without an external complainant who had connections, I get the feeling that the feelings of the WeMakeFailures engineering team wouldn't have resulted in a T&S ban.

[Kumioko]

That's the problem with Fram. He is often a jerk, but he is an expert manipulator and is very, very good at constructing Arbcom cases and arguments.

[mendaliv]

A point that’s fallen by the wayside, quite badly, is that the 70-odd page document from WMF was prepared in anticipation of arbitration/litigation, and should not be given the same weight as contemporaneous evidence. Yes, there may be contemporaneous bits of evidence peppered within that document, but the assemblance is not contemporaneous. In any functional adjudicative system there would’ve been some sensible form of discovery, even if it’s not full-blown US courts discovery, and Fram et al. would’ve been able to refute the document in some way, such as by providing other evidence that was omitted by WMF’s self-serving document.

[mendaliv]

That's the problem with Fram. He is often a jerk, but he is an expert manipulator and is very, very good at constructing Arbcom cases and arguments.

Really I think if there’s any way to get leverage on Committee reform it’s not through Fram but through how Ritchie was treated. Even people who were reluctant to speak up about Fram (because they thought he was a prick, etc.) were incensed over the treatment of Ritchie.

[Vigilant]

Point of order: Please show me where Fram was wrong in respect to Laura Hale.

[Jeff Hawke]

That's the problem with Fram. He is often a jerk, but he is an expert manipulator and is very, very good at constructing Arbcom cases and arguments.

I'm not entirely sure that that's the problem. Fram behaves as you would expect a person of authority to do in a rationally run project that was designed and resourced to produce a goal such as an encyclopaedia. Such a project, with tens of thousands of volunteers, would have a system of editorial control and management, in which more senior editors would be put in charge of supervising, correcting and critiquing the work of junior, newer contributors. Fram's behaviour would be perfectly rational in such a situation. In such a situation the way Fram treats junior contributors would itself be subject to supervision and correction by somebody more senior. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no such control mechanisms and no general acceptance that anyone's work should be in any way subject to criticism by anyone else. That's by design, and the fact that this means that there is no chance whatever of producing the claimed result is supremely irrelevant to the WMF.

[Poetlister]

Point of order: Please show me where Fram was wrong in respect to Laura Hale.

I doubt that many people here would say that much of what Fram said was wrong. Of course, not many people here can have the slightest effect on the proceedings. I hope that those people here who do have some influence have been taking notes.

[Randy from Boise]

Point of order: Please show me where Fram was wrong in respect to Laura Hale.

I doubt that many people here would say that much of what Fram said was wrong. Of course, not many people here can have the slightest effect on the proceedings. I hope that those people here who do have some influence have been taking notes.

Fram is an arrogant prick with more sharp edges than a new generation safety razor by Gillette... It's not what he said, it's how he said it.

RfB

[Vigilant]

Point of order: Please show me where Fram was wrong in respect to Laura Hale.

I doubt that many people here would say that much of what Fram said was wrong. Of course, not many people here can have the slightest effect on the proceedings. I hope that those people here who do have some influence have been taking notes.

Fram is an arrogant prick with more sharp edges that a new generation safety razor by Gillette...

RfB

No.
I disagree.

Laura Hale’s edits were terrible.

If she were anyone else, she’d have been indef’d with no questions.

I felt he was remarkably restrained.

[Jeff Hawke]

Point of order: Please show me where Fram was wrong in respect to Laura Hale.

I doubt that many people here would say that much of what Fram said was wrong. Of course, not many people here can have the slightest effect on the proceedings. I hope that those people here who do have some influence have been taking notes.

Fram is an arrogant prick with more sharp edges than a new generation safety razor by Gillette... It's not what he said, it's how he said it.

RfB

How, in your opinion, should someone who fills the project with misunderstood nonsense be handled?

[Randy from Boise]

Point of order: Please show me where Fram was wrong in respect to Laura Hale.

I doubt that many people here would say that much of what Fram said was wrong. Of course, not many people here can have the slightest effect on the proceedings. I hope that those people here who do have some influence have been taking notes.

Fram is an arrogant prick with more sharp edges than a new generation safety razor by Gillette... It's not what he said, it's how he said it.

RfB

How, in your opinion, should someone who fills the project with misunderstood nonsense be handled?

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

Laura Hale’s edits were terrible.

If she were anyone else, she’d have been indef’d with no questions.

I felt he was remarkably restrained.

I agree that he was (at least somewhat) remarkably restrained, but if she'd been anyone else, there would have been no need to ban her - she would have stopped, or perhaps left completely, of her own accord. Her connections and the general nature of what she was doing gave her a sense of entitlement that a normal person in that situation would have completely lacked.

We could still ask why Fram didn't give up back in the 2011-2013 period when most of this was happening and it was clear that she wasn't getting any better at it.... but even that's probably explainable because she kept taking those long breaks, then she'd come back with what looked like a flurry of activity - though actually she was just posting lots of articles based on a single template. (The reason for that pattern is anyone's guess, but if I had to guess, I'd say the apparent flurries of activity probably corresponded with a current or potential funding source asking her "what have you been doing for us lately?" and her not having a particularly good answer.)

Anyway, that's probably a good idea for a wide variety of "problematic" WP users who need to keep editing for whatever reason - post a bunch of stuff all at once, wait a few months for the fallout to land and eventually be forgotten, then do it again, and again, etc. Lather rinse repeat, as they say.

[mendaliv]

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

It depends on how strong the creator's allies are. It's not hard to derail an AfD and create the illusion of consensus, such that as soon as AfD regulars stumble upon it, they're dissuaded from commenting at all.

[Randy from Boise]

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

It depends on how strong the creator's allies are. It's not hard to derail an AfD and create the illusion of consensus, such that as soon as AfD regulars stumble upon it, they're dissuaded from commenting at all.

A proper mass deletion request would have almost certainly ended with a Merge result.

That's not the route he took.

RfB

[eagle]

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

It depends on how strong the creator's allies are. It's not hard to derail an AfD and create the illusion of consensus, such that as soon as AfD regulars stumble upon it, they're dissuaded from commenting at all.

A proper mass deletion request would have almost certainly ended with a Merge result.

That's not the route he took.

RfB

1) A group of Australian editors, including Arb John Vandenberg, made a proposal to the Australian Paralympic Committee promising to produce an on-wiki history of the APC in echange for $110,000. In Laura Hale's opinion, this meant that they had to document their impact by creating many articles, and then ramming them through DYK, GA and FA with a report of their numeric progress periodically to the APC. The APC still shares this impressive sounding data (with also includes Wikinews stories) in its own annual reports.

2) Laura Hale setting unrealistic goals then generates unreasonable pressure on her and her allies to produce quickly -- even if it means turning a GA review into an ArbCom case, or accidentally giving a bunch of BLPs the same birthdate. She would never stand by and take criticism to heart, any more than a McDonald's hamburger chef will stop and listen to criticism from customers about undercooked or misprepared food. So, whether Fram offered an AfD, or any other conventional measure, Hawkeye7 and Raystorm as well as sockpuppets like KnowIG (T-C-L) that were summoned by an off-wiki bat signal (perhaps on the Gender Gap email list) would pile on to defend her no matter how polite Fram was.

[Randy from Boise]

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

It depends on how strong the creator's allies are. It's not hard to derail an AfD and create the illusion of consensus, such that as soon as AfD regulars stumble upon it, they're dissuaded from commenting at all.

A proper mass deletion request would have almost certainly ended with a Merge result.

That's not the route he took.

RfB

1) A group of Australian editors, including Arb John Vandenberg, made a proposal to the Australian Paralympic Committee promising to produce an on-wiki history of the APC in echange for $110,000. In Laura Hale's opinion, this meant that they had to document their impact by creating many articles, and then ramming them through DYK, GA and FA with a report of their numeric progress periodically to the APC. The APC still shares this impressive sounding data (with also includes Wikinews stories) in its own annual reports.

2) Laura Hale setting unrealistic goals then generates unreasonable pressure on her and her allies to produce quickly -- even if it means turning a GA review into an ArbCom case, or accidentally giving a bunch of BLPs the same birthdate. She would never stand by and take criticism to heart, any more than a McDonald's hamburger chef will stop and listen to criticism from customers about undercooked or misprepared food. So, whether Fram offered an AfD, or any other conventional measure, Hawkeye7 and Raystorm as well as sockpuppets like KnowIG (T-C-L) that were summoned by an off-wiki bat signal (perhaps on the Gender Gap email list) would pile on to defend her no matter how polite Fram was.

I have more faith in the neutrality of the AfD process than you do, quite clearly. You assume a perverse result in this case; I assume a rational result.

RfB

[Vigilant]

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

It depends on how strong the creator's allies are. It's not hard to derail an AfD and create the illusion of consensus, such that as soon as AfD regulars stumble upon it, they're dissuaded from commenting at all.

A proper mass deletion request would have almost certainly ended with a Merge result.

That's not the route he took.

RfB

1) A group of Australian editors, including Arb John Vandenberg, made a proposal to the Australian Paralympic Committee promising to produce an on-wiki history of the APC in echange for $110,000. In Laura Hale's opinion, this meant that they had to document their impact by creating many articles, and then ramming them through DYK, GA and FA with a report of their numeric progress periodically to the APC. The APC still shares this impressive sounding data (with also includes Wikinews stories) in its own annual reports.

2) Laura Hale setting unrealistic goals then generates unreasonable pressure on her and her allies to produce quickly -- even if it means turning a GA review into an ArbCom case, or accidentally giving a bunch of BLPs the same birthdate. She would never stand by and take criticism to heart, any more than a McDonald's hamburger chef will stop and listen to criticism from customers about undercooked or misprepared food. So, whether Fram offered an AfD, or any other conventional measure, Hawkeye7 and Raystorm as well as sockpuppets like KnowIG (T-C-L) that were summoned by an off-wiki bat signal (perhaps on the Gender Gap email list) would pile on to defend her no matter how polite Fram was.

I have more faith in the neutrality of the AfD process than you do, quite clearly. You assume a perverse result in this case; I assume a rational result.

RfB

Come on.
Almost all of Laura Hale's articles survived AfD because her posse of shitheels came in and voted Keep.
Check the record.

[Randy from Boise]

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

It depends on how strong the creator's allies are. It's not hard to derail an AfD and create the illusion of consensus, such that as soon as AfD regulars stumble upon it, they're dissuaded from commenting at all.

A proper mass deletion request would have almost certainly ended with a Merge result.

That's not the route he took.

RfB

1) A group of Australian editors, including Arb John Vandenberg, made a proposal to the Australian Paralympic Committee promising to produce an on-wiki history of the APC in echange for $110,000. In Laura Hale's opinion, this meant that they had to document their impact by creating many articles, and then ramming them through DYK, GA and FA with a report of their numeric progress periodically to the APC. The APC still shares this impressive sounding data (with also includes Wikinews stories) in its own annual reports.

2) Laura Hale setting unrealistic goals then generates unreasonable pressure on her and her allies to produce quickly -- even if it means turning a GA review into an ArbCom case, or accidentally giving a bunch of BLPs the same birthdate. She would never stand by and take criticism to heart, any more than a McDonald's hamburger chef will stop and listen to criticism from customers about undercooked or misprepared food. So, whether Fram offered an AfD, or any other conventional measure, Hawkeye7 and Raystorm as well as sockpuppets like KnowIG (T-C-L) that were summoned by an off-wiki bat signal (perhaps on the Gender Gap email list) would pile on to defend her no matter how polite Fram was.

I have more faith in the neutrality of the AfD process than you do, quite clearly. You assume a perverse result in this case; I assume a rational result.

RfB

Come on.
Almost all of Laura Hale's articles survived AfD because her posse of shitheels came in and voted Keep.
Check the record.

Links?

t

[Jeff Hawke]

AfD can be your friend. He needn't have communicated with her at all after a first warning, just line up the crap articles and send them to the abattoir.

Almost all of Laura Hale's articles survived AfD because her posse of shitheels came in and voted Keep.
Check the record.

Thereby illustrating two of the design flaws with Wikipedia. In a rationally managed project, a senior editor, with experience, qualifications and authority, would explain to a junior contributor that they did not seem to be sufficiently literate in Spanish and were therefore being reassigned to another area: potentially followed by another conversation later saying that they did not seem to be suited to the project and their contributions were no longer required. There would not need to be a popular vote because it would be understood and agreed where responsibility for assessing and assigning work lies. Suggesting that she waste her time writing unacceptable articles and that other people waste their time deleting them, is, well, a waste of time. It doesn't even begin to resolve the issue of adding misunderstood material to existing articles (unless the suggestion was that every article she had ever worked on be deleted too).

[Vigilant]

Links?

t

Starting about here her garbage starts getting noticed. She edit wars to remove the CSD tags and pisses off SMcCandlish in the process.

I observe three and half years later that these articles have barely or not all improved.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The troops start rallying

Sabbath Shalom - שלום שבת
Hi. I'm at a loss for how to deal with recent issues related to women's sport. : / I opposed speedy deletion of women's sport in Australia made by Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish, tried to improve the sourcing as quickly as possible with was probably a bit of a liberal interpretation of the sources. Everything got tagged. There were WP:BOLD merges and what appeared to me to be threats to take the articles to WP:AFD. He said he would leave things alone on my talk page. (See the archive.) Now he's on Wikiproject: Women's sport. Sorry about that. I'm not certain how to deal with this. --LauraHale (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sabbath Shalom Laura, It is the beginning of the Sabbath to me. I leave to go to pray in the synagogue in a few minutes. I am not of a big help for your demand. I understands your anxieties but I am neither patroller nor administrator, not director, here on wikipedia. I am only writing articles. I believe that we cannot prevent whoever (even a misogynous man) from being member of WikiProject Women's sport. On Wikipedia all the members are free to be a member in various wikiprojets . I cannot prevent persons as User:LtPowers or User:Oknazevad from joining the WikiProject Women's sport or joining the WikiProject Feminism. On wikipedia , Try to assume good faith... Do you remenber Racepacket?
Anti-Semitismus 1933.jpg Violette Szabo IWM photo.jpg Female prisoners in Ravensbrück chalk marks show selection for transport.jpg

The probleme on Wikipedia Thus to survive, it is necessary to show solidarity between women. It is whom we are now that 9 % of women (in Febuary 2011 we were 13 %). They have the law of the number and they can infiltrated by the inside the WikiProject Women's sport or the WikiProject Feminism. Otherwise in 2015, there will be only 2 % women who will still be members of Wikipedia. It is sad but that is now the reality of wikipedia (in english, in hebrew or in French). Everybody try to assume good faith but Between feminists we have to stand by each of us. Entre féministes nous devons être solidaires de chacune de nous.בין פמיניסטים שאנחנו צריכים לעמוד על ידי כל אחד מאיתנו. --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
My letter to SMcCandlish
Bonjour Laura, j'ai écrit ce matin une lettre . Tu peux la consulter ici [1]. Hello Laura I wrote this morning a letter. You can consult here [2]. שלום כתבתי הבוקר מכתב. אתה יכול להתייעץ איתה כאן--Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

An article about a team that never existed gets renamed and kept.
Keep track of the names.


Non-notable article is kept with the same rabble
Hawkeye7, Nick-D, John Vandenburg, Graeme Bartlett


This AfD is a massive clusterfuck. All of the usual shitheels are there.


Another absolute shitfest with Laura and crew in the middle. This looks like gladiator school.


There are a bunch of useless templates and categories that gt nuked, but I'll focus on the articles themselves.

Now Fram gets involved and I'm just going to list the AfD pages, but the common names continue to show up. These are spread out.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t%C3%ADnez
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... stion_Road
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... B1a_Cortes
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tball_team

Fram goes into 'WTF is this garbage?!' mode. The whole archived page is about terrible articles by Laura Hale at AfD.
I count 23...

13 Proposed deletion of Sierra Leone national cerebral palsy football team
14 Proposed deletion of Kenya national cerebral palsy football team
21 Nomination of Adam Kellerman for deletion
28 Nomination of Netball and the Olympic Movement for deletion
39 Proposed deletion of New Zealand at the 1976 Summer Paralympics
41 Nomination of Argentina women's national inline hockey team for deletion
42 Proposed deletion of Australia women's national inline hockey team
43 Proposed deletion of Brazil women's national inline hockey team
44 Proposed deletion of Canada women's national inline hockey team
45 Proposed deletion of China women's national inline hockey team
46 Proposed deletion of Colombia women's national inline hockey team
47 Proposed deletion of Finland women's national inline hockey team
48 Proposed deletion of France women's national inline hockey team
49 Proposed deletion of Germany women's national inline hockey team
50 Proposed deletion of Great Britain women's national inline hockey team
51 Proposed deletion of India women's national inline hockey team
52 Proposed deletion of Italy women's national inline hockey team
53 Proposed deletion of Mexico women's national inline hockey team
54 Proposed deletion of Namibia women's national inline hockey team
55 Proposed deletion of New Zealand women's national inline hockey team
56 Proposed deletion of United States women's national inline hockey team
57 Proposed deletion of Argentina women's national inline hockey team
58 Nomination of Finland women's national inline hockey team for deletion

Of those, he only gets a few as the regulars show up and vote keep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Archive_16

Click through on some of those articles...
They're all just a few lines
Every single one of those articles is garbage.

All of the AfDs were handled in one AfD with the usual suspects voting keep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ockey_team


In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Archive_17, Fram wins a few more.
All of the articles taken to AfD are garbage and the AfDs with Laura Hale's clique get the article saved.
Another mass AfD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tball_team


None of these articles would survive an AfD in the wild.

[mendaliv]

This AfD is a massive clusterfuck. All of the usual shitheels are there.

Wow. DYK in May, GA in June, FAC started in July... and then sent to AfD in the middle of FAC. And deleted. And taken to DRV.

[Osborne]

There is a thread to discuss Laura Hale's "contributions".
Can we move the recent messages there?

[Poetlister]

Can we summarise the above discussion? Laura Hale was doing all sorts of dubious things, and doing them very badly. Fram objected, frequently. he was right to do so, although his methods have drawn criticism. It has been suggested that all that was necessary was to shovel loads of articles into AfD, but others have argues that this was done and didn't work. All in all, this is one of the biggest messes on Wikipedia since Essjay. It seems to me that the key question is whether the Arbcom will be able to sort it out, or will they feel too constrained by WMF actions. Alas, I can't see Arbcom having the ability or convictions to do the right thing.

[rhindle]

There is a thread to discuss Laura Hale's "contributions".
Can we move the recent messages there?

Well, that's a non-public thread so it may be different. The issue is if LH is truly responsible for the Framban. There is tons of circumstantial evidence that makes it easy to put two and two together however there is no "smoking gun" as of yet. I do not think T & S has come out with an official statement saying "This, now vanished user, had no role in this action" and I do not know if they even could. So there is no confirming or denying atm. Arbcom has the PD to possibly clear it up but I'm not holding my breath.

[mendaliv]

It would be profoundly foolish for them to either confirm or deny any individual’s role in Fram’s ban, though as T&S framed it to the Committee, I think they sought to present no individual gripe, and rather that there was a pattern they elucidated without help other than complaints. Preposterous.

As to LH, the information that’s been provided since her vanishing suggests that her contributions merit scrutiny regardless of her involvement in Fram’s ban (and regardless of how merited Fram’s ban was).

[rhindle]

It would be profoundly foolish for them to either confirm or deny any individual’s role in Fram’s ban, though as T&S framed it to the Committee, I think they sought to present no individual gripe, and rather that there was a pattern they elucidated without help other than complaints. Preposterous.

As to LH, the information that’s been provided since her vanishing suggests that her contributions merit scrutiny regardless of her involvement in Fram’s ban (and regardless of how merited Fram’s ban was).

I agree. I did mention that LH may be the Worst Wikipedian Ever in the other thread which was saying something even if you take out the Framban stuff(at least top 5). And yes, this whole thing is a shitshow unless there is some miracle in the PD that clears the air on things which is unlikely.

[Vigilant]

There is a thread to discuss Laura Hale's "contributions".
Can we move the recent messages there?

Well, that's a non-public thread so it may be different. The issue is if LH is truly responsible for the Framban. There is tons of circumstantial evidence that makes it easy to put two and two together however there is no "smoking gun" as of yet. I do not think T & S has come out with an official statement saying "This, now vanished user, had no role in this action" and I do not know if they even could. So there is no confirming or denying atm. Arbcom has the PD to possibly clear it up but I'm not holding my breath.

There is literally nobody else on en.wp that fits the profile.
There's not even a close second.
There's not even an aggregation of other users who's a close second.

That ARBCOM has to be careful to not say her name just shows how utterly broken this case is at a fundamental level.

Everything happened on en.wp.
There are a ton of contacts between Laura Hale and Fram.
It's all public record.
It's not nice.
Laura Hale was in the wrong on every occasion that I've dug up.
Laura Hale has a two decade history of playing dirty, manipulative politics on wikis.
Laura Hale is the wife of the Chair of the Board of Trustees.

What other explanation makes ANY sense? At all?

[Vigilant]

There's a lot of hand wringing on the supposedly closed evidence/talk page.

Comments by WereSpielChequers

Hi Beetstra, yes I agree that we are both at risk of such an arbitrary ban. Perhaps I am more accepting of this than you, but my response to the recent series of messes has included resuming one old hobby and trying out a new one. If the WMF decide they don't want me around I won't be as upset as I would have been a couple of months ago. I believe that it should be relevant to the WMF that an editor given a temporary ban needs to know what they are alleged to have done before they are allowed to resume editing. It should also be relevant to the WMF that if the community is to be self policing then it helps to know what Fram is alleged to have done. I suppose I should also add that if the intent of the WMF is to change improve behaviour on EN wiki then punishing someone for a reason that has to remain secret is at best an own goal. That their victim had a few years ago warned a WMF staffer against issuing death threats on IRC channels may just be a coincidence. As may their more recent run in with an "unblockable" editor. But if those were coincidences, it was a poor choice for the first person they thought merited a fixed term single project ban. Outside of WMF accounts we have a very hard rule against role accounts, perhaps now would be a time to address that anomaly. There is precedent for Arbcom desysopping the volunteer account of a WMF staffer, I hope that if T&S make similar mistakes in future, Arbcom would remember that they have that option. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv My reading of Arbcom's remit on this is that they can cancel, reduce, confirm or even increase Fram's sentence. What they can't do is say what Fram was accused of or by whom. However that is assuming that they are allowed to judge the evidence against Fram by the standards that Arbcom normally works to, if they have secretly been told to judge Fram by standards that don't normally apply here then all bets are off, and we will need to work out what trigger words we are and aren't allowed to use. If that's the case then I'd make the point that you can introduce a bunch of arcane and perverse rules such as wearing a hat when you want to make a point of order, accusing people of saying "terminological inexactitudes" rather than lies and even staying a swords distance apart when debating. But it may not make things more civil, just more arcane and offputting to newcomers. ϢereSpielChequers 15:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Re diff: More importantly, you or I could have the same behaviour and suddenly find ourselves under the same banhammer. That we can't police Fram is irrelevant (WMF will do that for us), and that they can't improve is not relevant to WMF (though, obviously to Fram themselves and, IMHO, to the encyclopedia). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not what Fram did.
It's who Fram did it to.

Secret evidence and unspeakable crimes aren't the things to be worried about here.

'Don't be uppity with white folks' is the rule these HNIC types aren't seeing is being applied.

[SLW80]

I'm pretty incensed that a Wikipedia admin would delete, against normal practice, the talk page of an editor seemingly at the heart of an extremely high profile active Arbitration case. This is, in my opinion, made much worse when it demonstrated that there is evidence there that head of the WMF already had strong opinions of who was the problem. I can not help but see this as something that gives a stronger presumption that an abuse of process occurred within WMF. I understand people not wanting to feel harassed but there is, in my strong opinion, adequate on-wiki evidence that LH was a problematic editor and that she has an advocate in a WMF board member, with whom it has been alleged on-wiki she had/has a personal and in-person relationship with. The whole thing, now including an attempt to delete evidence, stinks. I have no desire to explore what, if any, off-wiki/real world motives may or may not have been driving this process but I suspect the board probably should. Jbh Talk 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone needs to buy this person a whole case of their favorite beverage.

[Jans Hammer]

I'm pretty incensed that a Wikipedia admin would delete, against normal practice, the talk page of an editor seemingly at the heart of an extremely high profile active Arbitration case. This is, in my opinion, made much worse when it demonstrated that there is evidence there that head of the WMF already had strong opinions of who was the problem. I can not help but see this as something that gives a stronger presumption that an abuse of process occurred within WMF. I understand people not wanting to feel harassed but there is, in my strong opinion, adequate on-wiki evidence that LH was a problematic editor and that she has an advocate in a WMF board member, with whom it has been alleged on-wiki she had/has a personal and in-person relationship with. The whole thing, now including an attempt to delete evidence, stinks. I have no desire to explore what, if any, off-wiki/real world motives may or may not have been driving this process but I suspect the board probably should. Jbh Talk 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone needs to buy this person a whole case of their favorite beverage.

A couple of hours later the same "incensed" editor is awarding the abuse of process admin a barnstar for their handling of the "concerns" which were raised. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ar_for_you![/link]

[mendaliv]

I'm pretty incensed that a Wikipedia admin would delete, against normal practice, the talk page of an editor seemingly at the heart of an extremely high profile active Arbitration case. This is, in my opinion, made much worse when it demonstrated that there is evidence there that head of the WMF already had strong opinions of who was the problem. I can not help but see this as something that gives a stronger presumption that an abuse of process occurred within WMF. I understand people not wanting to feel harassed but there is, in my strong opinion, adequate on-wiki evidence that LH was a problematic editor and that she has an advocate in a WMF board member, with whom it has been alleged on-wiki she had/has a personal and in-person relationship with. The whole thing, now including an attempt to delete evidence, stinks. I have no desire to explore what, if any, off-wiki/real world motives may or may not have been driving this process but I suspect the board probably should. Jbh Talk 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone needs to buy this person a whole case of their favorite beverage.

A couple of hours later the same "incensed" editor is awarding the abuse of process admin a barnstar for their handling of the "concerns" which were raised. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ar_for_you![/link]

I think Jbh might have been thinking Yamla was a bit of an innocent bystander that genuinely didn't know what was going on, and wanted to salve the blows Yamla had received over it.

For what it's worth, I honestly think Yamla didn't fully understand what was going on. The fact that LH's account was obfuscated by RTV didn't make it any easier to catch what was going on. Yamla shouldn't have deleted the pages, yes, but I don't think it was nefarious. What I don't like is WTT's "compromise" of moving the user talk page history to User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/Talk page history archive (T-H-L). It just obfuscates things more for no clear reason.

[SLW80]

Hale has a habit of finding people who are naive (I was once one of them) and using them to do things that seem innocent, but are actually part of her manipulations. I dunno, I'm essentially an outsider, but it all looks like perfectly expected bullshit to me.

(As an essential outsider: Man, this looks like a bloodbath of a coup on WMF's part and I'm not sure how you're all going to wrestle control of your wiki back. o.O)

[Sophie]

Yes, for as much as some seem willing to believe WTT is some kind of knight in shining armour who is acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, ArbCom and goodness knows what else, he is in fact simply covering up and hiding as much as he thinks he can possibly get away with. Looks like - as the present ArbCom spokesperson - he's trying to ensure ArbCom cover the backs of T&S, WMF, Laura Hale and her partner, former ArbCom members, et al while ensuring ArbCom can continue to end up with a way to compose a PD to endorse the T&S position about Fram. How is it acceptable that Laura Hale's talk page has not been properly restored?

[SLW80]

How is it acceptable that Laura Hale's talk page has not been properly restored?

It's not. Its deletion -- naive or not -- and it's shuffling around is all very much in keeping with hide the bodies.

[Jbhunley]

I'm pretty incensed that a Wikipedia admin would delete, against normal practice, the talk page of an editor seemingly at the heart of an extremely high profile active Arbitration case. This is, in my opinion, made much worse when it demonstrated that there is evidence there that head of the WMF already had strong opinions of who was the problem. I can not help but see this as something that gives a stronger presumption that an abuse of process occurred within WMF. I understand people not wanting to feel harassed but there is, in my strong opinion, adequate on-wiki evidence that LH was a problematic editor and that she has an advocate in a WMF board member, with whom it has been alleged on-wiki she had/has a personal and in-person relationship with. The whole thing, now including an attempt to delete evidence, stinks. I have no desire to explore what, if any, off-wiki/real world motives may or may not have been driving this process but I suspect the board probably should. Jbh Talk 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone needs to buy this person a whole case of their favorite beverage.

A couple of hours later the same "incensed" editor is awarding the abuse of process admin a barnstar for their handling of the "concerns" which were raised. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ar_for_you![/link]

I think Jbh might have been thinking Yamla was a bit of an innocent bystander that genuinely didn't know what was going on, and wanted to salve the blows Yamla had received over it.

For what it's worth, I honestly think Yamla didn't fully understand what was going on. The fact that LH's account was obfuscated by RTV didn't make it any easier to catch what was going on. Yamla shouldn't have deleted the pages, yes, but I don't think it was nefarious. What I don't like is WTT's "compromise" of moving the user talk page history to User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/Talk page history archive (T-H-L). It just obfuscates things more for no clear reason.

Yes it was:

I indeed knew nothing of the specific current actions in this case and saw no reference to this on the user page or the user talk page. Had I been aware of the active case, I most certainly would not have acted. Is... this the Fram case? If so, this just gets worse and worse. --Yamla (talk) 8:56 am, Today (UTC−4) linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =912874473[/link]

That made me feel for her. She seems to have really not known what was going on. Sure, you can bust on her for not looking into things before doing the deletion but she quickly put her hand up and said she messed up. She answered questions without becoming defensive and worked to correct what she had done. That is a behavior pattern I want to encourage in anyone, especially a WP admin.

--
Jbhunley

[Vigilant]

Hale has a habit of finding people who are naive (I was once one of them) and using them to do things that seem innocent, but are actually part of her manipulations. I dunno, I'm essentially an outsider, but it all looks like perfectly expected bullshit to me.

(As an essential outsider: Man, this looks like a bloodbath of a coup on WMF's part and I'm not sure how you're all going to wrestle control of your wiki back. o.O)

Money and titles and employees and junkets make this war several orders of magnitude more vicious than the fanfic struggles.

[Vigilant]

Yes, for as much as some seem willing to believe WTT is some kind of knight in shining armour who is acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, ArbCom and goodness knows what else, he is in fact simply covering up and hiding as much as he thinks he can possibly get away with. Looks like - as the present ArbCom spokesperson - he's trying to ensure ArbCom cover the backs of T&S, WMF, Laura Hale and her partner, former ArbCom members, et al while ensuring ArbCom can continue to end up with a way to compose a PD to endorse the T&S position about Fram. How is it acceptable that Laura Hale's talk page has not been properly restored?

Worm That Turned aka David Craven is taking on the role of Mouth of Sauron here.

[SLW80]

Hale has a habit of finding people who are naive (I was once one of them) and using them to do things that seem innocent, but are actually part of her manipulations. I dunno, I'm essentially an outsider, but it all looks like perfectly expected bullshit to me.

(As an essential outsider: Man, this looks like a bloodbath of a coup on WMF's part and I'm not sure how you're all going to wrestle control of your wiki back. o.O)

Money and titles and employees and junkets make this war several orders of magnitude more vicious than the fanfic struggles.

LOL! Well, money and employment were both under attack back then, too; she directly tried to get one of my friends fired in real life, and I know of another case where she went to someone's employer trying the same thing. It was every bit as vicious, but unlike Wikidpedia and the WMF, we were still all in the background then as a culture and not really public-facing, and then we all banded together to boot her ass out. By the end, she only had maybe three white knights left and even they were mostly just keeping their heads down.

What I mean is, the fight was just as vicious, just more contained and with less 'outside' interference from media, casual rubberneckers, etc.

And then every single time she'd rear her head again, we'd remind everyone that she's a sociopathic grifter. I am sorry you folk inherited her, though.

[Vigilant]

Hale has a habit of finding people who are naive (I was once one of them) and using them to do things that seem innocent, but are actually part of her manipulations. I dunno, I'm essentially an outsider, but it all looks like perfectly expected bullshit to me.

(As an essential outsider: Man, this looks like a bloodbath of a coup on WMF's part and I'm not sure how you're all going to wrestle control of your wiki back. o.O)

Money and titles and employees and junkets make this war several orders of magnitude more vicious than the fanfic struggles.

LOL! Well, money and employment were both under attack back then, too; she directly tried to get one of my friends fired in real life, and I know of another case where she went to someone's employer trying the same thing. It was every bit as vicious, but unlike Wikidpedia and the WMF, we were still all in the background then as a culture and not really public-facing, and then we all banded together to boot her ass out. By the end, she only had maybe three white knights left and even they were mostly just keeping their heads down.

What I mean is, the fight was just as vicious, just more contained and with less 'outside' interference from media, casual rubberneckers, etc.

And then every single time she'd rear her head again, we'd remind everyone that she's a sociopathic grifter. I am sorry you folk inherited her, though.

Full disclosure: I'm elated, yet unsurprised, that the good folks of 'teh communitah of en.wp' have embraced yet another toxic toadstool, Laura Hale, so fully to their bosoms.

That we were gifted with the spectacle of a life sized Trojan horse filled with carborane superacid being gleefully wheeled inside the walls of the WMF, even onto the hallowed grounds of the Board, by dint of the gilipolla grande, Sefidari, is mouthwateringly piquant.

The pièce de résistance is that all of the people in positions of nominal authority are so pigheadedly stubborn that they will refuse to deal with the underlying dilemma unto their destruction.

They could have written this scene with ARBCOM and Fram in mind...

[Vigilant]

Laura Hale suborned an admin to get her user and user_talk pages deleted.
She would have known that they are evidence in an ongoing difficult ARBCOM case that centers on her conduct.

The user talk page was deleted by me. This was an incorrect action and I was not aware it was involved in this case. I discussed my actions with a number of users over at User_talk:Yamla#Page_deletion and worked with Worm That Turned to get the user talk page undeleted. I sincerely apologise, I wasn't following this case, wasn't aware that talk page was involved in the case, and worked to undo my mistake as soon as it was pointed out to me. There's more detail on my user talk page. I'm not monitoring this page, but if you need additional information from me, please ping me and I'll be happy to elaborate. Note that I'm away and without Internet access from Friday morning to Monday evening. Again, my apologies. I believed the user wasn't involved in any ongoing case and shouldn't have deleted the user talk page in any case. I wasn't trying to interfere here. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Laura Hale continues her manipulative behavior,now involving and embarrassing uninvolved admins.
Right to Vanish clearly should be revoked here and all pages undeleted, all oversighting undone, all blanking reversed.

Perhaps if she has to actually face he consequences of her actions, for once, she'll understand.

[Vigilant]

Oh dear, it gets deeper.

Yamla (T-C-L) is in a whole passel of trouble...

I think the community is entitled to know more about this, including your motives for acting at this time and who instructed you in what you surely knew was a clear breach of deletion policy. Alternatively, regarding your trust and competence per WP:ADMINACCT if you were unaware of the policy after 13 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The request came in to global-renamers mailing list and remains visible for those who have the access. As it was essentially a WP:VANISH request, I believed it was appropriate to delete both the user page and the user talk page. I see I was wrong about the user talk page, the strong consensus is that WP:VANISH is not sufficient. Therefore, Worm and I agreed the user talk page should be undeleted, and Worm undid the deletion. I'm not trying to hide anything here. There are privacy concerns at play, but only with regard to the original request. If you believe I have not sufficiently accounted for myself, you are welcome to take the matter to WP:AN. I won't repost the original request for privacy reasons, but several admins have access to the original request. Again, though, I made the wrong call and then worked to undo the call. But I made the wrong call in good faith. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In 13 years how many similar requests have you responded to in this incorrect manner? How many have you acted upon at all? I am struggling to understand how this is your first foray into vanishing requests EVER in 13 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not claiming this is my first foray into vanishing requests. I have no idea how many I have acted on, but that number would be small. I strongly suspect it's greater than this one, but I'd be very surprised if it was as many as five (but, to be clear, it may be five, it may be higher than five). I do regularly decline {{db-user}} on a user's talk page; if you include that in the count, it's substantially higher than five. In this case, I believed as the user was not currently blocked and had never been blocked, and as they wished to vanish, my action was appropriate. When it was pointed out to me that it was not, I engaged in discussion and then agreed the appropriate course of action was to undo my deletion. Look, I'm not sure what you want me to say. I didn't act in bad faith but I did make a mistake. When this was pointed out, I engaged in discussion and worked to get the mistake rectified. Will I make mistakes in the future? Undoubtedly, yes. Have I made other mistakes in the past? Certainly. Will I make this mistake in the future? I strongly believe I won't. I'm sorry I made this mistake. I'm unsure what you want from me. If you believe my admin bit should be stripped, I disagree but that's up to the community to decide (and obviously, you can bring that to the community). Maybe another sanction is appropriate. I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm not trying to claim my action was correct. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So, an admin who does fewer than 5 VANISHes in 13 years comes off the bench to do Laura Hale's?!?!
During the most contentious ARBCOM case ever?
Where Laura Hale is a central figure?!?!?!


Someone needs to ask Yamla, "Were you asked, told or intimated by anyone to act on this WP:VANISH request?"

[Vigilant]

Oh, look at that...
The games Laura Hale plays!

As a former subscriber to global-renamers it worries me that the list is being used for handling vanishing requests. It's kind of a dumb idea to send vanishing requests to that list, in my opinion - there are around 100 subscribers (all global renamers and stewards) so it's hard for things to stay private. The stewards OTRS queue seems like a better target. I haven't been on that list in a while, so maybe things changed, but I thought I would say something. --Rschen7754 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. This is the first one I've seen, but I haven't been on the list all that long. In this case, I should have redirected them to the stewards OTRS queue instead. It would certainly have saved me a bunch of difficulties. But that's also the right venue for these sorts of requests, in any case. --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Laura Hale sends an illegal deletion request to a list that should not handle them and an admin who has handled less than 5 of these cases in 13 years comes off the bench to do this one...


Odds that this was an innocent mistake?
ZERO

Odds that other are coaching her?
ONE

Another line has been crossed and this time people were watching.

Hey ARBCOM!

[rhindle]

in my opinion - there are around 100 subscribers (all global renamers and stewards) so it's hard for things to stay private

It seems the global renamers list is prone to leaks. Someone could potentially reveal who made this request.

[Vigilant]

in my opinion - there are around 100 subscribers (all global renamers and stewards) so it's hard for things to stay private

It seems the global renamers list is prone to leaks. Someone could potentially reveal who made this request.

Someone needs to take this to AN/I.

There is something seriously wrong with this particular action and in the processes that govern that list.

[Vigilant]

The scales begin to lift...

The right to vanish is indeed very important. When I saw that the the username "Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr" had something along the lines of "My name is Lara Hale" on her userpage (can't quote exactly because it is gone from the history now) I figured that this was a case of someone changing their mind about vanishing and deciding to reveal the identity behind the new username. When I saw the attempt to delete her talk page history on the English Wikipedia and on Meta -- including the part about asking Fram to leave her alone -- right when her actions were being scrutinized, it presented a dilemma. On the one hand, I very strongly support the right to vanish, and in my mind that includes someone who decides to vanish a second time as long as they aren't obviously gaming the system. On the other hand, when someone is trying to use T&S as a hammer to beat Fram with while hiding who they are, RTV sort of feels like gaming the system. I don't know what is right here, but I trust WTT to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That's Laura Hale's modus operandi.

She's been doing exactly this ON WIKIS for nearly two decades.
You guys have been played so hard.

[SLW80]

Back when we had the fanhistory:expose tag on del.icio.us, she flooded it with fluff articles written by her trying to bury our constant reporting of her actions. Of course she's trying to erase any evidence of her wrong-doing or her existence; it makes it easier for her to choose new targets. (Or to re-engage the old ones under a sockpuppet.)

[mendaliv]

The scales begin to lift...

The right to vanish is indeed very important. When I saw that the the username "Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr" had something along the lines of "My name is Lara Hale" on her userpage (can't quote exactly because it is gone from the history now) I figured that this was a case of someone changing their mind about vanishing and deciding to reveal the identity behind the new username. When I saw the attempt to delete her talk page history on the English Wikipedia and on Meta -- including the part about asking Fram to leave her alone -- right when her actions were being scrutinized, it presented a dilemma. On the one hand, I very strongly support the right to vanish, and in my mind that includes someone who decides to vanish a second time as long as they aren't obviously gaming the system. On the other hand, when someone is trying to use T&S as a hammer to beat Fram with while hiding who they are, RTV sort of feels like gaming the system. I don't know what is right here, but I trust WTT to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That's Laura Hale's modus operandi.

She's been doing exactly this ON WIKIS for nearly two decades.
You guys have been played so hard.

Guy Macon is completely wrong about how RTV should work anyway. It's a privilege, not a right; the guideline page itself makes that abundantly clear. It's discretionary, though it should usually be granted. But it should also be easily reversed if that person comes back or is using it to prevent scrutiny during a key period. And as I said over on the Fram talk page, it's not an ends in itself, but a means to an ends—leaving the Wikimedia ecosystem. If she's not doing this, her request for RTV assistance is forfeit.

WTT, of course, decided to play the "If you disagree with me, you'd better try to invoke recall of my admin bits" card. As though administrative misconduct is being alleged (well, it's not being alleged by me). Which is a profoundly unhelpful bit of escalation/brinksmanship.

[Black Kite]

Laura Hale sends an illegal deletion request to a list that should not handle them and an admin who has handled less than 5 of these cases in 13 years comes off the bench to do this one...

Odds that this was an innocent mistake?
ZERO

Odds that other are coaching her?
ONE

Another line has been crossed and this time people were watching.

I'm going to to give Yamla a pass on this. I think he just fucked up - he admits he hasn't been on the global renamers list for very long. No admin who actually knew who that vanished user was, and therefore how many eyes were on that talk page, would have deleted it. The conversation on his talk page genuinely gives the impression of "oh fuck, what have I done?"

[mendaliv]

Laura Hale sends an illegal deletion request to a list that should not handle them and an admin who has handled less than 5 of these cases in 13 years comes off the bench to do this one...

Odds that this was an innocent mistake?
ZERO

Odds that other are coaching her?
ONE

Another line has been crossed and this time people were watching.

I'm going to to give Yamla a pass on this. I think he just fucked up - he admits he hasn't been on the global renamers list for very long. No admin who actually knew who that vanished user was, and therefore how many eyes were on that talk page, would have deleted it. The conversation on his talk page genuinely gives the impression of "oh fuck, what have I done?"

Yeah I'm on the same page. When someone experienced more or less says, "Oh shit, I did the wrong thing. Sorry." it's such an unusual occurrence that I'm willing to forgive almost anything.