Fram banned by WMF

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:43 pm

I agree Hale's funding requests aren't terribly useful. Not only were they unsuccessful, they predate the start of her relationship with the Chair of the Board from what I can tell and she was not even a member of the board at the time. Hale is a typical character we see at these chapter organizations. Wikimedia UK had the most notorious issues, but many others have had problems. A lot of money and a lot of conflicts of interest being poorly monitored and poorly managed. This is why, despite all the whining about it given the false narrative to which they subscribe, GamerGate is a very good comparison. Much of what Fram was objecting to was Hale's activities on matters where she had a conflict of interest or where conflicts of interest were involved. She cried harassment, the Foundation cried misogyny, and they did it all to stifle criticism of their own corruption. From what I've seen, at least two people who had to sign off on Fram's ban would have known of Hale's relationship with Sefidari. In other words, they knew they were getting a request to take action against someone who causing discomfort to someone who has been the Board Chair's spouse. Even if Sefidari had zero involvement, it would be hard for that to not impact their decision-making.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by EarlStatler » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:30 pm

All true. I myself consider this trips and conferences in general a complete waisting of donor money and complete useless. And yes, no one will denier there has not not a impact on their decision-making. But that is not the point.
Fram is not blocked because of a complain of Hale but because of Guido's complain and is blocked for being uncivil. What he obesely was. We must not mix up all kind of thinks.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:05 am

EarlStatler wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:30 pm
All true. I myself consider this trips and conferences in general a complete waisting of donor money and complete useless. And yes, no one will denier there has not not a impact on their decision-making. But that is not the point.
Fram is not blocked because of a complain of Hale but because of Guido's complain and is blocked for being uncivil. What he obesely was. We must not mix up all kind of thinks.
I don't believe Guido said anything about complaining to the Foundation. At any rate, there is no reason to believe any complaint would have originated from him within the required timeframe. He could have been contacted as part of the Foundation's investigative process, but I doubt they would take his complaints very seriously. Not saying that because I think they wouldn't take nonsensical bad faith complaints and act on them so much as because Guido is terrible at making his own case for being wronged. Probably, the only reason he got off his ban temporarily a couple years back is because many on ArbCom at the time had their own COI editing history and thus felt sympathy for him over the issue. They would probably be more concerned about Fram's treatment of Drmies over Guido's ban than anything Guido would say about himself. Had they done a competent investigation into Fram's history, I imagine they saw that one of the two times unrelated complaints were made following that incident.

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:30 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:43 pm
I agree Hale's funding requests aren't terribly useful. Not only were they unsuccessful, they predate the start of her relationship with the Chair of the Board from what I can tell and she was not even a member of the board at the time.
You're missing the point: Laura Hale tried to get money for Courcelles, who is Karen Brown's husband. Maria Sefidari isn't the only one who has a conflict of interest re Laura Hale. Mrs. Brown is a member of "Trust and Safety"'s "Operations Team", and thus may well have personally performed the "deep dive" into Fram's activities which formed the basis for his ban. Earlier in this thread I documented both Browns' extremist stance re transgender issues. Now we learn that Laura Hale tried to get Mr. Brown funded.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:17 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:30 am
You're missing the point: Laura Hale tried to get money for Courcelles, who is Karen Brown's husband. Maria Sefidari isn't the only one who has a conflict of interest re Laura Hale. Mrs. Brown is a member of "Trust and Safety"'s "Operations Team", and thus may well have personally performed the "deep dive" into Fram's activities which formed the basis for his ban. Earlier in this thread I documented both Browns' extremist stance re transgender issues. Now we learn that Laura Hale tried to get Mr. Brown funded.
Unless there is some deeper connection, then I don't see this as being very meaningful. The grant did not go through and it was requested over seven years ago. I am not seeing anything that suggests they interact regularly. Far as I know, Courcelles and Fluffernutter live in America, while Hale was living in Australia at this time. Not sure how they connected for this, but there are two other people who could easily have brought Courcelles in for the matter

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by EarlStatler » Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:42 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:05 am
I don't believe Guido said anything about complaining to the Foundation. At any rate, there is no reason to believe any complaint would have originated from him within the required timeframe. He could have been contacted as part of the Foundation's investigative process, but I doubt they would take his complaints very seriously. Not saying that because I think they wouldn't take nonsensical bad faith complaints and act on them so much as because Guido is terrible at making his own case for being wronged. Probably, the only reason he got off his ban temporarily a couple years back is because many on ArbCom at the time had their own COI editing history and thus felt sympathy for him over the issue. They would probably be more concerned about Fram's treatment of Drmies over Guido's ban than anything Guido would say about himself. Had they done a competent investigation into Fram's history, I imagine they saw that one of the two times unrelated complaints were made following that incident.
Whatsoever. I agree with Crow Hale has not been the complainant because that had ended up in in huge scandal. And as long there is no evidence she was the complainant are all the give "arguments" on WO complete bullshit in relation to "HaleGate" what they try to create. As long they can't give that connection, missing link with a hard evidence it all rubbish.

There is simple no smoking gun.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:59 pm

EarlStatler wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:42 am
Whatsoever. I agree with Crow Hale has not been the complainant because that had ended up in in huge scandal. And as long there is no evidence she was the complainant are all the give "arguments" on WO complete bullshit in relation to "HaleGate" what they try to create. As long they can't give that connection, missing link with a hard evidence it all rubbish.

There is simple no smoking gun.
A smoking gun would be a direct admission or leaks of e-mails from Hale to the Foundation. Something like that is probably not going to happen. Despite all the efforts to avoid or deny the point, what I brought up is probably the closest we will get to a smoking gun and I think it is more than enough to posit Hale was the complainant every single time. Others were clearly contacted and evidence gathered, but the process was most likely initiated by Hale in each and every case. Without her, it is unlikely this ever would have gotten to where we are now. The ArbCom diff was most likely supplied as a way to deflect attention away from Hale and put the focus on an institution consisting of users who already deal with plenty of hostility. In essence, the members of ArbCom were, unbeknownst to them, drafted into serving as Hale's meat-shields.

Personally, that aspect is not so dissimilar to my own experience in being banned. When ArbCom initially banned me they claimed it was for harassing "editors" as if to say multiple people were my supposed victims. May be that their attention was for me to think it involved multiple editors and therefore could not be just what I suspected and so I would be caught up trying to figure out who else it may have been that I supposedly harassed. No doubt they would claim, and may believe to some extent, that they did this to protect my supposed victim. However, fundamentally it was about compromising my state of mind. There are other things involving ArbCom, its members, and Wales himself that also had this effect. It is why I refer to it as "gaslighting" despite some bristling at my use of the term. Perhaps they would claim it was not their intent, but the effect of their actions was to make me question my own mind so as to effect a cover-up.

What is most obscene is that it was not at all necessary. Over three years I have known exactly what occurred and yet I have not contacted the administrator during that time or done anything that could identify the administrator. For over two years I have not even spoken to ArbCom about this administrator. That is even after I had reason to believe they had briefly contemplated sanctions against the administrator for COI editing during that time. My case is different in the sense that it was not public conduct and my e-mails were not mean-spirited in any way. However, this approach at "protecting the victims" has a serious impact on the person targeted with this kind of process. At least, Fram had been given by the Foundation a decent idea from the outset about who specifically might be instigating the process.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by EarlStatler » Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:59 pm

To keep the discussion clean I want to leave my ban out of it, otherwise I make the impression I am biased.
No, I can't share your conclusion because it is a Star Chamber process. It is impossible to confirm or deny your conclusion for me, because it is all speculation. And even if she has complained it is not a crime, just like Guido has the right to complain.
And WMF took the royal way out, being uncivil what he indeed was.

I am really sorry, I am a banned user myself, but here is no escape out. In no way. WMF is simple for nothing to blame and Hale also not.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:18 pm

EarlStatler wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:59 pm
To keep the discussion clean I want to leave my ban out of it, otherwise I make the impression I am biased.
No, I can't share your conclusion because it is a Star Chamber process. It is impossible to confirm or deny your conclusion for me, because it is all speculation. And even if she has complained it is not a crime, just like Guido has the right to complain.
And WMF took the royal way out, being uncivil what he indeed was.

I am really sorry, I am a banned user myself, but here is no escape out. In no way. WMF is simple for nothing to blame and Hale also not.
There is a difference between saying you can't know who was the complainant and asserting someone wasn't the complainant or that someone else was the complainant. My stance on this is not "speculation" as that implies a lack of firm evidence. We have evidence through Fram and Hale herself that she was reporting his conduct to the Trust and Safety team. No definitive proof has been found that she initiated it every single time, but we have evidence that suggests it. The evidence we have is stronger than any evidence we have regarding anyone else.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by EarlStatler » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:50 pm

It is simple all to weak, TDA . Indeed there is evidence that suggests it and that is all. Suggest. But that is not the way to build a hard case. There is simple a lack of firm evidence, and Fram is banned with the reason uncivil. And there are plenty of hard evidences he was.
1-0 for the foundation.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests