Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Vigilant]

Ok, so what is the chance that T&S, of all the thousands (millions?) of wp-editors, by pure chance, goes after the, eh, adversary of the spouse of the WMF leader? (or "chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees", to be official; see María Sefidari (T-H-L))

About the same chance as being killed by a falling cow*; I would say.



*urban legend: no people were ever killed by falling cows.

Fram's been an annoyance on Wikipedia for years, if not more than a decade. It's no surprise that the WMF Trust and Safety is buddies with someone who's not good at editing Wikipedia. It's also no surprise that Fram went after someone who's not good at editing Wikipedia. I think it's happenstance which gives the appearance of a conflict of interest that Hale is married to Sefidari Huici.

Laura Hale is a serial predator.

Laura Hale is a serial grifter.

She's also an absolute shit article writer.

She was also editing for undisclosed payment.

She was also canvassing off-wiki on google groups with others in her scheme.

You should read this entire 80 page thread over again, end to end, prior to posting any more asinine garbage here.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Fram's been an annoyance on Wikipedia for years, if not more than a decade. It's no surprise that the WMF Trust and Safety is buddies with someone who's not good at editing Wikipedia. It's also no surprise that Fram went after someone who's not good at editing Wikipedia. I think it's happenstance which gives the appearance of a conflict of interest that Hale is married to Sefidari Huici.

That wacky Fram, always getting on people who write crap Wikipedia articles for writing crap Wikipedia articles. Clearly, he should have instead gone after the people who don't write crap Wikipedia articles for writing crap Wikipedia articles.

You wouldn't believe law enforcement in my area. They're targeting only the drunk drivers for DUI enforcement.

[Midsize Jake]

Look, let's not be too hard on Mr. Comfortless here. It's possible for reasonable people to believe that the T&S people acted on their own; though admittedly, it's not really plausible that the T&S people had no idea that Hale and Sefidari were in a relationship, or were at least "good friends." So, at best, we're talking about people who were stupid and incompetent enough to think they could do what they did without anyone thinking something fishy was going on, which is bad, and which also suggests that they have a very low opinion of Wikipedians' ability to think independently. (Of course, many of us here on Wikipediocracy also have a very low opinion of Wikipedians' ability to think independently, so it's hard to really blame them.)

It really just becomes a question of what's more likely, given what we know about the people involved. The fact that we don't have a slip of paper or an e-mail from Maria Sefidari addressed to the head of T&S saying "this Fram dude has got to go" is almost a tangential issue, isn't it? The T&S people could easily have concluded on their own that this is what she wanted, and since it also coincided with the WMF trying to (at least publicly) prioritize civility and diversity over things like editorial talent and engagement-levels, and also with their apparent hankering to make an example of someone well-established (to prove their sincerity), then yes, it's possible to think this could have all gone down without a direct request from Ms. Sefidari. But is that likely? Particularly since they'd never imposed a similar ban before...?

This is why the evidence of Ms. Hale's low-level grifting and chicanery is so relevant. Sure, it's possible that we're wrong about the "direct request" issue. But if you really dig down, it becomes increasingly clear that all of this was consistent with a well-documented pattern of behavior that points very strongly in the other direction.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

So, at best, we're talking about people who were stupid and incompetent enough to think they could do what they did without anyone thinking something fishy was going on, which is bad, and which also suggests that they have a very low opinion of Wikipedians' ability to think independently. (Of course, many of us here on Wikipediocracy also have a very low opinion of Wikipedians' ability to think independently, so it's hard to really blame them.)

I definitely think it's at least a possibility that there were WMF people who didn't understand the full scope of the issue.

But for Sefidari to have not been involved would take a series of monumental coincidences that's on the order of flipping a coin heads 50 times in a row.

[MrErnie]

At this point I agree with Vig that WithoutComfort is probably trolling, but I'll try to be very succinct here. Sefidari is aware that Hale doesn't like how Fram interacts with her. We know that Hale contacted T&S about Fram. Even if T&S doesn't know that Hale and Sefidari are in a relationship they can clearly see Raystorm's comments just like the rest of us, and are presumably aware of who she is. *Edit* She had to disclose her COI's proactively as a trustee */Edit*. T&S then conducts an action they've never done before against Fram. You believe that is happenstance? This stuff has been very thoroughly documented and discussed in this thread.

On a side note, if one is looking through the entire discusison then one will note the first reply is by admin Orderinchaos - an Aussie vocal in their support of Chris.Sherlock.

[Poetlister]

Self-serving denials aren't great evidence. Maher and Dennis are not disinterested, neutral parties, but parties that had a vested interest in the allegations not being made public, if true. Especially since the denials referenced here were contemporary with them defending a job that they quietly gave her out of order.

A proper rebuttal would provide redacted evidence of and testimony about the timeline of when Sefidari became aware of what was going on and how the WMF acted around that. It would have provided details -- again, properly redacted -- that indicated the steps that were taken to ensure that the board chair was not included.

Given the WMF board actions over the last several years, they've thoroughly vitiated any presumption of good faith. Add in the unprecedented use of power to discipline a personal enemy of the chair of the board, and the board ought to be in a position where the burden of proof must be on them to put on an affirmative defense. "Nuh-uh!" doesn't do it.

There's also the fact that there was a block for only one year. If Fram really were a threat, bad enough to be of the sort that T&S have to deal with, it would have been an indefinite ban. There are so many things consistent with the claim that Laura Hale used her partner's undoubted great influence to attack someone she didn't like, and are harder to explain on any other basis, that Occam's razor strongly indicates that the claim is true.

[Beeblebrox]

*urban legend: no people were ever killed by falling cows.

When i was very young, my Mom worked for an insurance company, and she handled a claim where a man was killed by a falling bull. At that time there were still small scale farms in suburban areas, and this bull got out from one of those and ran out onto I-75 (T-H-L) near Cincinnati. As traffic approached it it leapt into the air, and cleared the first vehicle, but landed squarely on the second one, ending it's own life as well as the driver.

[No Ledge]

*urban legend: no people were ever killed by falling cows.

When i was very young, my Mom worked for an insurance company, and she handled a claim where a man was killed by a falling bull. At that time there were still small scale farms in suburban areas, and this bull got out from one of those and ran out onto I-75 (T-H-L) near Cincinnati. As traffic approached it it leapt into the air, and cleared the first vehicle, but landed squarely on the second one, ending it's own life as well as the driver.

We know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. And we covered it.

[Without Comfort]

Office Actions don't normally go through the board. The CEO rather than the chair of the BOD is responsible for staff in all the orgs I'm familiar with. Trust and Safety wouldn't normally face wrath or be tasked via the chair of the BOD.

To explain why Fram was less banned than normal, it makes sense to think back to the fact that civility has been a topic for years. Wales made it the cornerstone of his speech during Wikimania one year. Since the English Wikipedia did not find a problem with Fram, despite his having been regarded as a problem for years, Trust and Safety probably thought a tailor-made solution was practical to retain him as a contributor.

Here's my timeline:
Hale and Sefidari Huici are married Wikimedians. One edited a lot, and poorly, at English Wikipedia. One ended up on the board and eventually as chair.

Were I in Sefidari Huici's shoes, I'd have told my spouse to report to Trust and Safety, since that is the route of such complaints when a user feels unsafe or hounded and a specific project declines to act. Hale reported. Hale probably knows how to word things just so in her complaints because she has caused a lot of online meanness. I suspect she does not believe she has acted inappropriately online. Later, one of Hale's former victims communicated some of Hale's behavior on this forum.

Trust and Safety found Fram concerning, since everyone agrees he's a real jerk in how he presents his legitimate complaints. Fram is the poster child for civility being ignored on the projects despite its being a fundamental pillar. Lack of civility is a major contributor to toxicity across the projects.

Trust and Safety eventually acted, after a warning to Fram.

None of these hypothetical steps rely on anyone in the system acting in a way that isn't normal in the system, until Trust and Safety acted in Fram's favor given that they'd decided to act. They lessened their normal punishment. Had they not done so, Fram wouldn't be allowed to edit today, and the community would never have been in an uproar.

There are two problematic individuals: Hale and Fram. I don't feel the need to let either off for their documented poor behavior, nor to drag Sefidari Huici into this. Occam's Razor: Two messed up people on one project that is also messed up with oversight from an external body that is messed up itself. That's all we need to explain what happened.

[Midsize Jake]

Fram is the poster child for civility being ignored on the projects despite its being a fundamental pillar.

Aside from being largely a matter of opinion, that argument has always struck me as post-Framgate pro-WMF revisionism. Lots of WP admins act like assholes towards untalented n00bs — the idea that he was somehow unique or even unusual in this regard is pretty close to absurd. The only thing unusual about Fram was (and maybe still is) that he's never spent much time forming a clique around himself — but even then, the other admins still circled the wagons around him because (1) that's what WP admins do, (2) "there but for the grace of the Wikigods go I," and (3) they probably came to the same conclusions we did about why the WMF targeted him.

Frankly, from my observations, I have to conclude that the only purpose of this "Fram was unique"/"Fram was the poster boy" argument is WP/WMF apologism, trying to get people to believe the ludicrous notion that en.wikipedia can solve all their "newbie-harassment" problems by shedding themselves of one person.

I'm sorry to cherry-pick this one sentence out of your entire post, but it's basically the linchpin of the whole pro-WMF argument, is it not? If the T&S people actually paid attention to what the en.WP admins do on a day-to-day basis — and I strongly suspect they don't — the only reason they would have concluded that Fram was uniquely abusive would have been because somebody insisted he was uniquely abusive in the process of complaining about him, and they didn't think they could ignore that complaint and that assertion. And since Fram wasn't being accused of pedophilia or something similar, it was most likely because of who the complainer was.

[Emptyeye]

Gotta agree with Jake above.

Was Fram uncivil? Eh, sure, at times, I guess, though his arguments were usually right on their merits (Including Laura Hale being a problem editor, which even Without Comfort acknowledges).

Was he uniquely so to the point that he could be fairly called "The poster child for civility being ignored on the projects"? I'll be blunt: You're drinking the WMF Kool-Aid* if you believe that. There are numerous people I would put in that category before Fram, including some who have posted here in the past.

I do agree that the "Punished Fram less than they had typically done" was a tactical error on the WMF's part. Fram was popular, yes, but T&S was (From my outside view) one of the few WMF departments where en.wiki was like "Yeah they're actually competent at their job"; if they had just banned him, there wouldn't have been nearly the outcry that there was--people would've shrugged and said "Oh I guess he did something really bad" (Even though he hadn't).

*Interesting note: The event that gave rise to this idiom may not have used Kool-Aid at all.

[MrErnie]

The only thing unique about Fram's "incivility" was the person who complained about it. There's a lot of uncivil people that Bishonen protects, but their targets are typically unpersons with right wing or anti IB views, for example. Fram's "target" had protected views and was extremely well connected.

[el84]

I'm sorry to cherry-pick this one sentence out of your entire post, but it's basically the linchpin of the whole pro-WMF argument, is it not? If the T&S people actually paid attention to what the en.WP admins do on a day-to-day basis — and I strongly suspect they don't — the only reason they would have concluded that Fram was uniquely abusive would have been because somebody insisted he was uniquely abusive in the process of complaining about him, and they didn't think they could ignore that complaint and that assertion. And since Fram wasn't being accused of pedophilia or something similar, it was most likely because of who the complainer was.

Weren't there two complainants? BU Rob13 being the other?

[No Ledge]

*Interesting note: The event that gave rise to this idiom may not have used Kool-Aid at all.

Kool-Aid is a Generic trademark (T-H-L). If, rather than a drink, Jones had laced a generic brand of gelatin dessert, everyone would be saying "Eating the Jell-O".

Weren't there two complainants? BU Rob13 being the other?

I believe T&S claimed there were several complainers.

Fram is the poster child because T&S made him the poster child. They hung the poster with his name on it when they gave him their first-ever timed ban.

I'm sure the plan was to keep hanging more posters until the uncivil contributors got the message. They had to choose one to be first.

[Ming]

Fram is the poster child for civility being ignored on the projects despite its being a fundamental pillar.

Fram was and is nowhere near the rudest prominent WP person. Fram is somewhat abrasive, but most of that is his lack of patience with incompetence. This was regularly illustrated in his battles at DYK, where much of the time he was the only person doing any serious reviewing.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

The "was less than they would normally do" is a complete nonsense argument, since T&S getting involved in a very typical, normal, everyday discipline thing like this is something that they're almost never involved with. That Fram got *any* punishment from this -- something that only was the loss of a gavel after being adjudicated in ArbCom -- from T&S is in itself far more than the normal, not less.

[Midsize Jake]

While we're at it, there's another (IMO, revisionist) argument I'd like to address, namely the one where Maria Sefidari couldn't have been culpable for Framgate because she "declared her COI" with respect to Laura Hale well in advance of the Fram ban. That was a good and honorable thing for her to do, and I (along with most of us here) commend her for it. But the fact remains, that declaration had nothing to do with behavioral or disciplinary matters on Wikipedia itself. She made that declaration because Laura Hale kept asking the WMF for funding, over the course of years, not to mention asking for press credentials and travel reimbursements.

In point of fact, there is no law, by-law, regulation or rule stating that an executive in an American corporation or non-profit can't impose — much less "suggest" — disciplinary measures against an employee who harasses or threatens that executive's spouse. (And here I'm talking about employees; unpaid volunteers have practically no rights at all in this regard.) There are plenty of rules against imposing such measures against an employee who refuses to invest money in the executive's spouse's startup company, for example, or for showing favoritism to an employee who does, but that's about money. If I work for you and I start slandering your wife in public, you're well within your rights to fire me, for cause, just for doing that — and you don't even need a "COI declaration" to do it. (On top of that, my only recourse would probably be the whistleblower protection laws, and we all know those are practically worthless even if I could prove corruption, self-dealing, malice, etc. on the part of the spouse and/or executive.)

Again, these arguments are mostly made by people with an axe to grind against us, not Wikipedia (which they mostly think is just great, or would be if they controlled it personally or if maybe just one or two of their personal enemies were banned from there) — and who have so little real respect for (or belief in) their own positions that they're compelled to use vulgar, sexist, racist, and homophobic ad hominem innuendo to back themselves up. Maybe they think they're justified because there's no "smoking gun," and I guess that would be fine if they were actually consistent in their own evidenciary standards and never made baseless accusations themselves. But nobody here, to my knowledge, has ever claimed to have definitive documentary proof that Maria Sefidari ordered or requested the Fram ban. What's more, it shouldn't matter because that lack of definitive proof doesn't mean we're not allowed to connect the dots and suggest it as a likely explanation. It is a likely explanation. To the vast majority of people involved, we'd look pretty stupid if we didn't suggest it as such.

[Without Comfort]

I believe Genderdesk also thinks the Sefidari Huici angle is going too far as well as saying that Hale's access to WMF cash occasionally is something other volunteers access regularly.

[Midsize Jake]

I believe Genderdesk also thinks the Sefidari Huici angle is going too far as well as saying that Hale's access to WMF cash occasionally is something other volunteers access regularly.

And she's also entitled to her opinions, as well as her (fairly obvious) biases and her well-known enmity towards this website. I don't even blame her — some of our members are obviously not her cup of tea, to say the least. But those things have to be acknowledged; Ms. Genderdesk is no more of a "neutral broker" regarding this whole business than we are.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

I believe Genderdesk also thinks the Sefidari Huici angle is going too far as well as saying that Hale's access to WMF cash occasionally is something other volunteers access regularly.

Using Genderdesk to buttress this point is like saying "If you doubt Donald Trump's stolen election claims, Ted Cruz agrees with him!" As soon as Sefidari cried sexism, GD was all-in on that side; a signed confession wouldn't move her, though as a notorious, raging TERF, either Hale or Sefidari turning out to be transgender women would.

[MrErnie]

If Jill Biden complained to the Secret Service that a janitor made her uncomfortable, would we all just shrug if they took that janitor out and shot him in the head so long as Joe said he didn’t have anything to do with it?

[Without Comfort]

I believe Genderdesk also thinks the Sefidari Huici angle is going too far as well as saying that Hale's access to WMF cash occasionally is something other volunteers access regularly.

Using Genderdesk to buttress this point is like saying "If you doubt Donald Trump's stolen election claims, Ted Cruz agrees with him!" As soon as Sefidari cried sexism, GD was all-in on that side; a signed confession wouldn't move her, though as a notorious, raging TERF, either Hale or Sefidari turning out to be transgender women would.

Nah, no buttressing. It's a dialogue.

[jf1970]

If Jill Biden complained to the Secret Service that a janitor made her uncomfortable, would we all just shrug if they took that janitor out and shot him in the head so long as Joe said he didn’t have anything to do with it?

If it turned out the janitor had flashed Jill, we might all just shrug. If it was caught on video and the janitor was prosecuted by the FBI, we wouldn't assume Joe had anything to do with it. Especially if the janitor had a prior record.

[Vigilant]

The Jill Biden analogy sucks.

[Zoloft]

The Jill Biden analogy sucks.

Can't we shoehorn a car analogy into this somewhere?

[MrErnie]

The Jill Biden analogy sucks.

It’s hard to simplify because you can’t just compare anyone to Laura Hale.

[WikiWatcher]

Fram is the poster child for civility being ignored on the projects despite its being a fundamental pillar.

Aside from being largely a matter of opinion, that argument has always struck me as post-Framgate pro-WMF revisionism. Lots of WP admins act like assholes towards untalented n00bs — the idea that he was somehow unique or even unusual in this regard is pretty close to absurd.

Yeah, but Fram spent plenty of time acting like an asshole to pretty much everyone, and also evidently being an asshole to people over email. I don't know if he was unique, but he was a very prominent asshole.

Frankly, from my observations, I have to conclude that the only purpose of this "Fram was unique"/"Fram was the poster boy" argument is WP/WMF apologism, trying to get people to believe the ludicrous notion that en.wikipedia can solve all their "newbie-harassment" problems by shedding themselves of one person.

I don't get it. The WMF fundamentally agrees with you that the English Wikipedia has an asshole problem. You don't have to get far into a conversation with anyone who works there for that to be apparent. You also don't have to look very far into what the WMF is actually doing for that to be apparent (the UCOC is not aimed only at the English Wikipedia, but it's part of it). Banning Fram fits fine into that pattern of behaviour. Unbanning him fit's right into the counter-pattern that the WMF doesn't understand 'teh community' very well and is mildly terrified of it.

Why is it necessary to spin up a whole conspiracy theory to avoid the idea that you and the WMF agree on something?

[jf1970]

Why is it necessary to spin up a whole conspiracy theory to avoid the idea that you and the WMF agree on something?

What the hell else are they gonna talk about for 76 pages?

[Vigilant]

Why is it necessary to spin up a whole conspiracy theory to avoid the idea that you and the WMF agree on something?

Have you read this thread?
Have you read the evidence or followed the links or seen what SLW80 had to say?

Calling out Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici as frauds and grifters is well supported by the facts and the history, especially Laura Hale's MO of infiltrating online communities, trying to monetize them for herself and fucking people over.

Occam's Razor is a thing for a reason.

[No Ledge]

The Jill Biden analogy sucks.

Can't we shoehorn a car analogy into this somewhere?

Just watched The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley
And this update Quite a tale about the power of makeup on older white men.

Sorry, I tried shoehorning Elizabeth Holmes into here but couldn't manage to force the shoe to fit because Fram didn't have a grandfather on the WMF board of directors, nor the same ability to keep his composure under pressure as Shultz' grandson.

And WMF's board doesn't look like one that's ready to take over the world.

[Midsize Jake]

Frankly, from my observations, I have to conclude that the only purpose of this "Fram was unique"/"Fram was the poster boy" argument is WP/WMF apologism, trying to get people to believe the ludicrous notion that en.wikipedia can solve all their "newbie-harassment" problems by shedding themselves of one person.

I don't get it. The WMF fundamentally agrees with you that the English Wikipedia has an asshole problem. You don't have to get far into a conversation with anyone who works there for that to be apparent. You also don't have to look very far into what the WMF is actually doing for that to be apparent (the UCOC is not aimed only at the English Wikipedia, but it's part of it). Banning Fram fits fine into that pattern of behaviour....

First of all, the WMF isn't the one doing the apologizing. The apologizing is coming from people who claim, at least publicly, that the idea that Maria Sefidari encouraged T&S to ban Fram is "ridiculous." They want people to believe that banning individual admins will solve Wikipedia's problems because they hate those individual admins (often for good reason) and want to experience what they assume will be a kind of orgasmic wave of triumphal self-vindication when they're banned. I suspect they know that such bans aren't going to change the system or bring about meaningful reform, but of course I only suspect that; it's possible these people really believe it's all down to "just a few bad apples."

Second, my earlier point that Fram was unusual in that he didn't try to form a clique around himself, or join someone else's clique, is relevant here because this is what made the WMF think they could get away with banning him, not the fact that he was abrasive or abusive towards new and/or less-talented users. I know I'm in the minority here in thinking that the WMF people are not stupid, but so help me, I do believe they were smart enough to know that the most established and vested Wikipedians want admins to be abrasive and demanding to new or untalented users. (And yes, as you say, they now consider this to be a problem, though they didn't always.) They almost certainly knew Fram would get some support from the "community," but they probably figured that since he wasn't central to a clique, like say, Bishonen or Drmies or Floquenbeam (and honestly, the vast majority of highly-active admins), maybe they could weather the storm. And they would have known this because, duh, lots of WMF employees are also WP regulars who would have known that and told them, if they'd been asked. So again, the stupid bit was not who they targeted, it was simply their thinking nobody would notice that the person who had complained the most about Fram was married to the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, and then put two and two together.

Now, to some people who are predisposed to disagree with everything I say, that might sound like conspiracist reasoning. But we're not really talking about a conspiracy here, we're talking about why people would think (or pretend to think) the idea that Maria Sefidari put her thumb on the scale is somehow "ridiculous." And who knows, it may actually be a form of lingering Trumpism or something wherein people publicly take the position that if the other side can't produce a "smoking gun," then the other side must be loudly decried as a bunch of lunatics, because you certainly can't give an inch when the mean 'n' scary fact-checkers get too close to the truth.

But I actually don't think that's what it is at all. I think it's just personal animosity towards us, for all the mean 'n' scary things we've done over the years, like, I dunno, banning those same people from Wikipediocracy, maybe.

[AngelOne]

I don't know how involved Sefidari was in the Fram ban, but it's hard not to see something awry there. I don't think she was directly involved with the decision to ban Fram, given the denials that this happened. I think that somehow, T&S and everyone who signed off were trying to appease her or get on her good side, or they thought they would be punished somehow if they didn't do what her wife wanted. People in some places will help the boss' spouse because they think it's expected of them, even if they're never explicitly asked to do anything. In other words, it's entirely possible for Sefidari to have influenced the ban discussion just by being Chair of the BoT and her wife being a major complainant.

It's also entirely possible Sefidari did nothing and truly did not use her influence as Chair of the Board of Trustees, that it was Hale who did it. Given that Hale is a known manipulator (and quite good at it), it makes sense to me that Hale could have emphasized her relationship with Sefidari when speaking with T&S. I wouldn't be surprised if Hale said or implied either that helping Hale would ultimately benefit people, or that not helping Hale would result in some kind of punishment. In other words, Hale could have used Sefidari's position to get her way.

Had these kinds of bans been handed out before, the question of Sefidari's involvement in the ban wouldn't have come up, because Fram's ban would have been one of many and it would have appeared less obviously a retaliation by Hale. But to start with this ban?

Maybe T&S decided to make an example of Fram because, as Jake suggested, he had no clique to support him. But if they were that aware of this optic, I find it difficult to believe that they would be unaware of the optics of banning someone based in part on the Chair of the BoT's wife. (I'm assuming that everyone knew about the Hale-Sefidari relationship, which I think I remember as having been disclosed.) Even if we didn't know what a manipulator Hale is, and even if both Hale and Sefidari are squeaky clean, and even if everyone who was a part of the ban discussion was immune to influence, the optics wouldn't look good.

[Without Comfort]

I don't know how involved Sefidari was in the Fram ban, but it's hard not to see something awry there. I don't think she was directly involved with the decision to ban Fram, given the denials that this happened. I think that somehow, T&S and everyone who signed off were trying to appease her or get on her good side, or they thought they would be punished somehow if they didn't do what her wife wanted. People in some places will help the boss' spouse because they think it's expected of them, even if they're never explicitly asked to do anything. In other words, it's entirely possible for Sefidari to have influenced the ban discussion just by being Chair of the BoT and her wife being a major complainant.

It's also entirely possible Sefidari did nothing and truly did not use her influence as Chair of the Board of Trustees, that it was Hale who did it. Given that Hale is a known manipulator (and quite good at it), it makes sense to me that Hale could have emphasized her relationship with Sefidari when speaking with T&S. I wouldn't be surprised if Hale said or implied either that helping Hale would ultimately benefit people, or that not helping Hale would result in some kind of punishment. In other words, Hale could have used Sefidari's position to get her way.

Had these kinds of bans been handed out before, the question of Sefidari's involvement in the ban wouldn't have come up, because Fram's ban would have been one of many and it would have appeared less obviously a retaliation by Hale. But to start with this ban?

Maybe T&S decided to make an example of Fram because, as Jake suggested, he had no clique to support him. But if they were that aware of this optic, I find it difficult to believe that they would be unaware of the optics of banning someone based in part on the Chair of the BoT's wife. (I'm assuming that everyone knew about the Hale-Sefidari relationship, which I think I remember as having been disclosed.) Even if we didn't know what a manipulator Hale is, and even if both Hale and Sefidari are squeaky clean, and even if everyone who was a part of the ban discussion was immune to influence, the optics wouldn't look good.

This gets at my thinking. Standing up to the wife of the BOD chair is going to be awkward. The optics are awful.

Fram was also ripe for a new Trust and Safety anti-mean guy initiative. The WMF had been squawking about civility for eons. They wanted to act to make the community more civil (a pipe dream, but they believe it). Hale made a good case (manipulators are so good at that). Fram didn't toe the line after the warning, and the rest is history.

[owl be it]

I don't know how involved Sefidari was in the Fram ban, but it's hard not to see something awry there. I don't think she was directly involved with the decision to ban Fram, given the denials that this happened. I think that somehow, T&S and everyone who signed off were trying to appease her or get on her good side, or they thought they would be punished somehow if they didn't do what her wife wanted. People in some places will help the boss' spouse because they think it's expected of them, even if they're never explicitly asked to do anything. In other words, it's entirely possible for Sefidari to have influenced the ban discussion just by being Chair of the BoT and her wife being a major complainant.

It's also entirely possible Sefidari did nothing and truly did not use her influence as Chair of the Board of Trustees, that it was Hale who did it. Given that Hale is a known manipulator (and quite good at it), it makes sense to me that Hale could have emphasized her relationship with Sefidari when speaking with T&S. I wouldn't be surprised if Hale said or implied either that helping Hale would ultimately benefit people, or that not helping Hale would result in some kind of punishment. In other words, Hale could have used Sefidari's position to get her way.

Had these kinds of bans been handed out before, the question of Sefidari's involvement in the ban wouldn't have come up, because Fram's ban would have been one of many and it would have appeared less obviously a retaliation by Hale. But to start with this ban?

Maybe T&S decided to make an example of Fram because, as Jake suggested, he had no clique to support him. But if they were that aware of this optic, I find it difficult to believe that they would be unaware of the optics of banning someone based in part on the Chair of the BoT's wife. (I'm assuming that everyone knew about the Hale-Sefidari relationship, which I think I remember as having been disclosed.) Even if we didn't know what a manipulator Hale is, and even if both Hale and Sefidari are squeaky clean, and even if everyone who was a part of the ban discussion was immune to influence, the optics wouldn't look good.

People can stick their heads pretty far up there when they're part of an organization/culture where everyone does the same thing. Kooky stuff becomes normal to them since they don't interact with outsiders much...

[10920]

Can you prove that Sefidari Huici was in touch with Trust and Safety on this matter? Maher and, I think, Dennis said this never took place. At most Sefidari Huici would have had to recuse herself, but if she was never consulted by Trust and Safety, then no recusal of what she was unaware was happening could have taken place. It's hard to know how much Hale knew about Trust and Safety's ideas about possible actions. It may have been that she knew nothing.

I assume you're trolling at this point.

[Moral Hazard]

I assume you're trolling at this point.

AGF, I prefer to think of it as commitment to character.

OTOH, if I had my druthers, every Andy Kauffman wannabe performance artist would be eating strawberries in a padded institution.

[Vigilant]

It was all a lie.

From the beginning.

Everyone in the C-Suite at WMF knew it was a lie.
Trust&Safety knew is was a lie.
ARBCOM knew it was a lie.

All of you involved suck.

[Vigilant]

<bump for fundraising banner thread>

A reminder of what the WMF has historically done when confronted with their overreach.

[Vigilant]

My favorite hard ass has another run in at ANI


User page history



Etc, etc
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/proofreadbiz
https://twitter.com/ddetonnerre
https://www.youtube.com/c/DavidTonner

Construction work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen ... _26_seats)

[Giraffe Stapler]

Construction work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen ... _26_seats)

Why does that article even exist? Are there articles for every party in every Canadian regional election?

[No Ledge]

Are there articles for every party in every Canadian regional election?

Funny you should ask. Yesterday I ran across this orphan which is the de facto biography of Val Bjarnason (T-H-L).

I added several links including from his ex-wife Madeleine Parent (T-H-L), so that page isn't an orphan anymore.

[No Ledge]

Construction work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen ... _26_seats)

Why does that article even exist? Are there articles for every party in every Canadian regional election?

But I don't see Revirvlkodlaku (T-C-L) in the revision history of that page, so I don't see the relevance.

[ArmasRebane]

Fram is often an asshole who's right, but in this case he's just an asshole. Edit-warring over petty shit, name-calling, all because someone dares remove content that's unsourced rather than tagging it or finding the source itself, all of which are allowed options.

[Ming]

Fram is often an asshole who's right, but in this case he's just an asshole. Edit-warring over petty shit, name-calling, all because someone dares remove content that's unsourced rather than tagging it or finding the source itself, all of which are allowed options.

What strikes Ming about it is the need to take sides on it, when it should be closed with a "both of you clowns knock it off."

[ArmasRebane]

Fram is often an asshole who's right, but in this case he's just an asshole. Edit-warring over petty shit, name-calling, all because someone dares remove content that's unsourced rather than tagging it or finding the source itself, all of which are allowed options.

What strikes Ming about it is the need to take sides on it, when it should be closed with a "both of you clowns knock it off."

Fram is not the kind of guy to accept a trouting and go off quietly (I dunno about the other guy, but he's certainly been the quieter one in that thread.)

[Vigilant]

Ding dongs making it worse.

Oh my word. This is a content dispute over fairly minor and inconsequential details like infobox fields, external links, and miscellaneous list items. As I consider this to be an inflammatory argument involving infoboxes, I have given a discretionary sanctions notice to Fram and Revirvlkodlaku. I think the pair should simply avoid each other from now on, and Fram should read WP:VANDALISM carefully. Seriously, let's not have to do anything else, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea why you felt the need to template two people with a (rather outdated) DS notice for an already settled dispute about one article, but thanks for trying I guess? Did you really think dropping that note on both our talk pages would actually solve anything at all about this dispute? Or did you just totally miss the gist of this dispute, and took the only thing that looked vaguely threatening and perhaps, somehow, vaguely related? But I'm glad that you consider the list of which films and TV series a production company has produced a "fairly minor and inconsequential detail", it's just the essence of what they do but who cares, as long as we can template some people we feel as if we have achieved something and are useful admins. Keep up the good work! Fram (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

[Ritchie333]

Well somebody had to do something….

Last few times I defended Fram (deleting something for him, or unblocking him) at least one person complained and asked why Fram got preferential treatment. You can’t win.

Might as well be me getting the flak for it.

[Vigilant]

Well somebody had to do something….

Last few times I defended Fram (deleting something for him, or unblocking him) at least one person complained and asked why Fram got preferential treatment. You can’t win.

Might as well be me getting the flak for it.

Why?

Fram is right here.

That rant was not helpful, Fram. You're giving ammunition to the people who think we'd have been better off if you'd never been unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You´re completely right. Ritchie, thank you for giving me a DS warning for an already resolved dispute, not about having an infobox or not, but about which infobox was the best on one single article. Thanks to that DS notice I´ll be able to move on as a much improved editor. And thank you, the hand etc., for making me see the error of my ways and make me remember that the reason I was blocked was for criticizing those in power or their friends, and that I should react gracefully to whatever nonsense admins are willing to say to me. What would I do without you both? Fram (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also right ...

In any content dispute between two people, where only one person is adding reliable sources, that person is in the right. This is henceforth to be known as Marshall's Third Law.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Miso_Film (T-H-L)

From the talk page of the weirdly contentious article

Sourcing instead of removing

Removing unsourced entries from this page isn't helpful, it is quite clear that the entries were correct. Much better to source them, to tag the ones you can't find with CN (after doing some good searching), and to add entries still missing from the list. But please stop removing entries just for the sake of it, it isn't helpful. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you perhaps explain why you are on the one hand so hellbent on removing unsourced entries, but on the other hand have now repeatedly removed the single ref from Dicte, 1864, ...? Because it gets harder and harder to know what you want or expect here. Fram (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

From the article history

curprev 15:53, 5 January 2023‎ Revirvlkodlaku talk contribs‎ 4,600 bytes −43‎ Copy edit; general fixes; deleted redundant reference tags; replaced "selected" before "productions", inexplicably removed by previous editor undo

curprev 15:45, 5 January 2023‎ Fram talk contribs‎ 4,643 bytes −112‎ →‎External links: Removed one, also used as reference undo

curprev 15:44, 5 January 2023‎ Fram talk contribs‎ 4,755 bytes +831‎ Sourced a few more, removed one where I couldn't find good independent sourcing. A few more still to do undo

Someone needs to slap Revirvlkodlaku (T-C-L) upside the head.
He's clearly wrong here.

[ArmasRebane]

Vig, you see someone fighting righteous crusades, I see a sad, petulant person who flies off the handle with very little provocation.