You left the comment The sources seem to be more nuanced than this. They relate to what seems to be a libel case where some Facebook comments were allowed to remain and others were not. A Portuguese speaker should review the sources to ensure NPOV/BLP. If you don't speak Portuguese why don't you refrain from making such judgments? The first source already in its title says "Médico Barakat perde pedido judicial movido contra o cantor Netinho" - "Doctor Barakat loses legal request against singer Netinho" [1] and the second one describes that the singer does not have to pay damages for pain and suffering. [2] Omikroergosum (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the talk page of the draft, where I see you have also left a comment. It is best to keep these discussions centralized and within the article's history. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 22:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you write this here and then pester me on my talk page with a seemingly authoritative message even though you pointed out yourself when I complained about you in the administrators' noticeboard that you are not even an administrator? Omikroergosum (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and you obviously did not read the notice. See Arbcom discretionary sanctions. The notice is to inform you of the existence of those sanctions. The format, {{ds/alert}}, is required.

Your best solution, is to consider what several experienced editors have told you. Then, if you want, re-write the article and submit it to WP:AFC by following the instructions at the top of the draft. I can say, from seeing a similar process unfold scores of times, that your current approach -- simply complaining rather than addressing the issues -- will not work. In most cases such a strategy ends in revocation of editing privileges.

I do hope that does not occur. There probably are enough independent reliable sources to write a policy compliant article on this subject. So... working on that is much more likely to get the article published. Jbh ^Talk 23:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not point me to any arbcom discretionary sanctions that affect my editing nor did you ever specify your complaint about a very well sourced article but just left an aggressive warning that appears authoritative even though as you use in your own defense you are not even an administrator. Several administrators have already decided to speedily keep the article, restored it and argued the negative content is well sourced. If you disagree, defend your arguments in a proper deletion discussion and stop pestering other users, threatening others and using condescending language. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to see your name on my watchlist. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Good to be back. Jbh ^Talk 22:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision that when you look at the table of contents one entry has prominence over the others because it has a subsection. My concern is that this will open the floodgates and encourage some of our more hotheaded editors to insert multiple subsections, try to make their points in subsection titles, etc. I really think that the basic plan of having each person make their point in the text instead of the header is a good one. Could I persuade you to edit your section so that it has the same "Comments by..." format in the table of contents as all of the others? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I appreciate your position but I feel that the Arbs really are not listening to anyone there, not about the fundamental changes they are making in our community governance at least Possibly the only way to get them to read something on that talk page, now that it has 55 "Comments by" sections is if people start using sub-headings as 'elevator pitches'. In truth, I doubt even that will work but I guess what I am saying is while the clerks can change what they want, in this case part of my decision to use a sub-heading was to encourage their use to highlight new points, arguments and information. Jbh ^Talk 15:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. I hope they listen. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How does one go about securing a $100/hour position writing articles on Wikipedia? Is it a patronage appointment basically? –xeno^talk 10:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: That is the question. The numbers come from the 'Budget' section of this document. How long the paid program went on is an open question however on p.54 of the APC's 2017-2918 Annual Report many of the same people in the tender are being mentioned as still doing work on Wikipedia,

There has also been mention of funding for a trip or trips from Australia to Europe to cover Paralympic games. I am unclear on the details though.It has been mentioned that the tickets were for a prize in some article writing competition that were not awarded but rather used; or through a grant request to the Foundation; or that the people paid their own way. I do not know which if any of those is true. I have, however, formed the opinion that, in general, people are making money and trips using Foundation money in ways that look... ummm... sketchy. I suspect, but do not know, that should the Foundation grant process and travel funding be examined by outside parties that they may not be able to readily understand the rational behind the funding decisions being made.

The OUTING skirting summary [3] posted on the PD talk page gives what, in my opinion, is a fair summary of why there is an appearance of impropriety relating to the LH portions of FRAMGATE. Jbh ^Talk 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchy doesn’t really capture it. The whole thing seems rotten to the core, with some users impLicated that I did not expect. Have you considered filing a case request? ^{The allegation of} Users and staff (some rather high ranking) acting in a secret bloc to support a paid editing endeavour should be receiving direct scrutiny. –xeno^talk 09:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ^{14:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

@Xeno: I agree that the problems are both longstanding and deep rooted. Courcells, our just resigned arb, was a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket which was brought by Laura Hale about another editor who was 'picking on her edits/DYK'. In this case we see many of the players in the APC job. Interestingly, if you look on the evidence page you will see that Fluffernutter (Now with T&S and with a well known COI re Courcells) "created a timeline" that is now deleted. (It is a sandbox link so I do not think its deletion nefarious) So there is direct evidence that both a member of Arbcom and a member of T&S were aware of the issues surrounding LH's editing as far back as 2011. I have not read the case through so I can not comment on nuance.

I posted Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for reversal of vanishing &/ ban by motion. I do not know that I would be up for bringing a full case about the APC editors for a few reasons: It would be a "principled stand" since I am not directly involved and last time I did that I got hammered for it; I do not think the community cares and I do not believe Arbcom capable of dealing with the matter (See my prev re "hammered"); Much of the evidence could run afoul the changed WP:HARASSMENT policy since it requires 'digging' on not enwiki Wikimedia sites and then material linked from there; There is a large chance I would not be able to sustain the effort for the time needed - just an unpredictable limitation I've learned to live with.

That said I'm still looking and I intend to participate should a case be brought. The issues I have seen exposed in FRAMGATE seem to be to be fundamental to the health and good running of the project. Regrettably I do not think we are healthy or well run enough to deal with the problems. I have tried to change that and I'll probably try again because I believe the ideal of Wikipedia is a good one.

Also, there are almost definitely people with good intentions, both on and off Wikipedia, who were involved in the APC project and were completely unaware of the problems on enwp or even what kinds of behavior would be problematic. Any presentation of this matter would need to be sensitive to that. Jbh ^Talk 15:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very disturbing. Like Guy Macon, I am extremely concerned about where the money goes, particularly as the donations are generated by volunteer free labour. The Signpost is probably the place where such issues can be laid open for examination but it would first require some in-depth investigative journalism. Smallbones? Bri? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I am not sure how much was Foundation money vs APC money vs Australian federal/education grants. I suspect there is Foundation money involved. Any investigation into money is sensitive. Denoting the line between "sketchy", "unethical", "malfeasance" and "criminal" is difficult. Each has an appropriate venue and investigative techniques. I have found and/or seen enough information to have formed the opinion that the first two have occurred; the third is highly likely and I have no opinion on the fourth.

Right now the main protagonist is person who has expressed a desire to leave Wikipedia so care must be taken not to cause distress disproportionate to the expected benefit of an expose. Much of the background has been collected and/or discussed off-wiki. While those source are inherently wiki-tainted much of the initial information has been collected though I strongly caution those not collecting their own data to take special care to form their own analytical and investigative opinions. This can be difficult when one is exposed to new information which has been 'pre-framed'.

If finances are your concern I would, in the general case, look for a pattern of practice which could point to self-dealing or loose financial oversight. I do not know enough about this case or WMF funding patterns in general to have an opinion. My initial read is that this particular case is likely to be more about individuals exploiting Wikipedia and third parties than the Foundation itself doing sketchy things. That opinion could change but that is the outline I see based on what I have seen to date.

Also, see my reply to xeno above. Jbh ^Talk 15:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both well-reasoned posts. Thank you, –xeno^talk 16:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just acknowledging the ping, amd wanted to say I brought this up with Smallbones before it was sent. Seems very newsworthy to me but obviously risky for The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re:"The Signpost is probably the place where such issues can be laid open for examination but it would first require some in-depth investigative journalism." Part of me would really like to look into this in great detail (but I haven't really seen enough solid evidence yet to start anything for The Signpost). And part of me says that these accusations won't be able to be shown one way or another with sufficient evidence, so all that might happen is some good people get tarred with unprovable accusations, i.e. smeared. I, personally will keep looking around for evidence one way or another, just to keep on top of a possible story. I wouldn't personally think I'm the best person to do this story, but if others on The Signpost (or, with caveats, from the community at large), want to submit a story - well send me an email first - but I'm not totally against it. There better be good evidence first though. Before publishing, all key evidence has to check out with diffs, or publicly accessible high quality sources. In general if The Signpost starts an investigation, we'd have to commit ourselves, right at the start, that we'll publish our results one way or the other, e.g. yes, it looks like there was inappropriate conduct, or "these accusations look to be unfounded," or perhaps "some interesting questions were raised, but our failure to find solid evidence on xxx shows that the accusers have failed to prove their case." The writer/investigator would make their own conclusions, with heavy input from me, and we'd have to call 'em as we see 'em. Email me diffs or other publicly available material just to keep me in the loop - but no promises. I'm not averse to asking accused people for their response (if the evidence is strong enough). I once emailed the Acting Attorney General of the US for his response, and eventually got it through the Justice Department's PR person (after publication). So no promises, but feel free to keep me informed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight on how The Signpost goes about things. As I said, it is not something I would want to go forward with for all the reasons I mentioned above. There are just too many blind spots in the information currently available to assess what, if anything, is there. Assuming the reporting is not limited to WP drams (Which I can not see the point of) I believe it would be imperative to ask the people involved at the APC, Queensland Univ, the APC History Project as well as our editors and Foundation personnel for both comment and information in order to have a fair and comprehensive pre-publication investigation and I'm just not up for that. Right now all there is is enough for a hit piece on LH and I see no public benefit to that. While I can support the use of such info as a springboard for a 'lessons learned' and to see if we have people abusing the WP/WM systems there is no way I would support publication as a news story. I say let The Guardian AU, or such, do it if the story has legs. Jbh ^Talk 19:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my eyes open on this but there is a very long way to go. One possible alternative is to look for little pieces and move the story ahead one step at a time. These little pieces may not be what anybody wants however. BTW asking people or institutions to open up to The Signpost can be pretty difficult outside the broad Wikimedia community. Actually it's pretty difficult for any journalist anywhere, but I suspect that The New York Times, Washington Post, or The Guardian have much better resources than we do, especially with institutions outside the Wikimedia community. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing excellent work in showing the T&S action for what it really was and why it should all be struck down and everything done properly without the toxic external interference that has dogged the community for the last three months. And, by your last last comment, when you say "stretching the envelope", do you mean "acting entirely improperly and in probably the worst possible way that they can do"? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thank you. Considering this material will possibly be used to later demonstrate issues re not only other editors but at least one board member and relations with outside projects (I see no evidence of fault by those projects) I am being very careful not to state opinion as fact nor draw conclusions or make claims about people's professional behavior. Beyond that I want to avoid or minimize the entanglement of the many good faith editors touched by the APC project with those whose good faith I feel should be examined rather than assumed. -- Aside from attempting to convince the Arbs of the ethical and procedural weaknesses of this case, I am documenting the un-examined issues should anyone ever decide to formally examine them.

The issues appear to me, based on the information I have developed or seen, to range from questionable editing, undisclosed COI and apparent violations of English Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines; through apparent misbehavior of a board member with respect to enwp editing/PaGs and situations and behavior as a Foundation Trustee which need to be addressed to square statements and actions where there was the appearance of conflict of interest; to editor relationships and funding from outside organizations.

I do not know if those matters will ever be effectively addressed or even addressed at all; But, for the health of the Foundation and community I firmly believe they need to be. Jbh ^Talk 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second SchroCat's praise of your work. You are to be commended for the diligence and professionalism of your investigation. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"for the health of the Foundation and community I firmly believe they need to be": I agree wholeheartedly. And this is the problem with silencing Fram and holding proceeds in camera. If this had been handled in the normal way, this evidence would have been presented much earlier in the process and form much of the background and locus of dispute to be examined. I suspect that's why it's T&S that's been handling it, rather than an ArbCom case opened by one of the people in the loop you describe. I doubt we will ever get to the bottom of it all, but you are making an excellent attempt to lie it all out in the open. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Details come out on Meta" has an "emp. mine" in a quote that has no emphasis added. If the emphasis was added by LH it should be added to the quoted material. If added by someone else the "emp. mine" note should be removed.

BTW, really good stuff. When I do my daily look at updates I look at your first. --05:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thank you! Is it the "talk page notice"? If so the final paragraph, listing the T&S people, is italicized to in connection to the point in "red". I did not want to bold the names because I thought that would make them too prominent since I was criticizing the one listing them not them for being listed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention though, you are correct that it is hard to see the emphasis with the small type. It does defeat the purpose when the ^{emp mine} is more prominent than the "emphasis". Jbh ^Talk 06:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check Meta :) [I'm not watching your talk page and will likely miss any replies here.] — regards, Revi 15:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@-revi: Thank you. I will work on writing something. Jbh ^Talk 16:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBhunley. I noticed that you pinged me here to state that I was "intimately familiar" with a vanished editor, and here to state that I was part of a group of "Wikipedia editors who, at a minimum appear to have supported and shielded a problematic editor, again over a period of years". That's...a pretty hardcore accusation to be making, and not one that makes any sense to me. The entirety of your evidence seems to be that I made a timeline of events related to a 2011 Arbcom case involving the vanished editor (and perhaps that I'm married to Courcelles, and he once interacted with the vanished user, and something something transitivity?). That timeline has since been deleted by me based on it containing information about other users that was no longer needed, but any administrator can review the deleted content and tell you that it was, literally, just a timeline: a bullet-point list of things that happened/were said and when they happened/were said. The only other times a quick ANI search shows me participating in discussions regarding the vanished user (long before I took on my role with the WMF), I believe I either supported sanctions or I supported the user being given mentorship to remedy weak spots in their editing.

I understand that you feel something has gone gravely wrong in the Fram case and in the related situation with the vanished user, but I would ask that you please not allege malfeasance by me unless you are prepared to present strong evidence to that effect. If you're unable or unwilling to present such evidence, please retract your accusations against me, as they are very hurtful personally and are potentially harmful to my ability to do my job, which is supporting and strengthening the community and which matters to me very much. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffernutter: This is a copy of the clarification I placed on the Stewards page

To be clear I mean to neither state nor imply malfeasance on the part of en:User:Fluffernutter. I am making an argument of appearances which the vanishing of this user makes unreasonably difficult to scrutinize. For clarity. Her husband was a named party in an arbitration case brought against an editor who was scrutinizing the vanished editor and causing disruption to her project much like Fram. Because Fluffernetter created a timeline for the case she had knowledge of this editor and the issues surrounding her in 2011.It is merely an indication of a linkage which someone scrutinizing the totality of this matter would likely want to explore solely because of Fluffernetter is now a member of T&S and her husband a member of the Arbcom at the time of the Fram case (I have seen no indication he participated publicly in the case and no reason to believe he did so provatly) I see no indications of malfeasance on the part of Fluffernutter.[4]

I did not intend to imply and do not believe I did imply an any intimate relationship between you and LH I was speaking around your marriage to Courcells because I had often heard it mentioned but was not positive it had been disclosed on wiki and I am trying very hard not to do any OUTING.

To explain in a bit more detail. I believe that I have created a solid case that but for LH T&S would not have done the ban. My reasoning is in my thread in the case PD talk page but I can lay it out. Proceeding from the 'but for' one must then ask why: There we have the 'stuff' surrounding the APC project - defense of bad editing practices by the same group of involved editors; the 2011 Arbcom case which there are off-wiki indications that the subject of the case was interfering with LH's work; and the ban of the editor doing the same thing as the first was in 2011; There is an seeming line that can be drawn between 2011 and now and I can draw that line. I was going to do some of that for the Stewards today but I have been a bit sidetracked.

Anyway, since the 2011 case is an, imperfect, analogue but seems to have a similar motive (based on the but for conclusion) The participants of that case become of interest. More so if they occupy positions of power or authority now. That is all I intended to or imply. There is a link no more and no less. Not that you have done anything wrong or that I have reason to suspect you have only that there is a link. Also, again to be clear, the link is not just that you made a timeline. You could have done that and forgotten by now. The link that is that your now husband participated in the case and was also involved in the Paralympic project (I am not linking him to any of the general issues I have raised here or elsewhere about that project. I am noting only his long term involvement cf meta:Grants:PEG/Laura Hale, Courcelles, Hawkeye7, Chzz/Outreach Oceania) and you you were familiar enough with the case to make a timeline. I do not think you did anything improper but you are currently employed by T&S. The same T&S that acted to inexplicably, inexplicable except for that line of similarity between now and that old case. That is the problem when organizations act suspiciously (I challenge you to say with a straight face that, from the outside point of view, there are not good reasons to see T&S's action and subsequent behavior as suspicious. they bring suspicion down on all those involved whether objectively deserving of it or not.

I am trying to choose my words carefully in all of this and not to make claims beyond the evidence I can publicly post on WP. Please, read through what I have written because, as this conversation shows, what I intend, what I write and what others understand sometimes do not line up. If you have any other concerns please let me know either on WP or via email. Jbh ^Talk 20:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may not have been your intention, but I think you have attacked SilkTork’s personal hygiene, fragrantly been violating the claimed embargo on this information Jehochman ^Talk 08:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point this out (to prove that people are uncollapsing and reading the letter), but Jehochman put it better than me. Flagrantly. BTW (on a matter further up the page), the relationship between Courcelles and Fluffernutter (or at least that stage of the relationship) was disclosed on his userpage in August 2014 with this edit. Not sure if it was disclosed or known earlier. See also here (also in August 2014) and the edit summary, and the update in April 2018 here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Thank you. I was sure it was known in general, just not positive enough to refer directly considering some of the circumlocutions required to avoid WP:OUTING claims in general. She also mentioned it directly in a section above. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want more corrections? (I say this as someone who has great respect for what you have been writing - have you considered, um, applying those skills in certain positions on Wikipedia?): 'rational' -> rationale; 'envalope' -> envelope; 'doner' -> donor. On a more pertinent point, the username has no space (this is a redirect on meta and a deleted page [red-link] here). You corrected this in your text, but the opening line of the request red-links to the version with a space (which does not exist and is not registered - I am surprised no-one has locked that down yet to avoid problems later). Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Putting my reply here to avoid the nice poem below Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A truly horrible typo is when you send invitations for a Donner Party instead of a Dinner Party. And yes, these skills of perception could be put to good use starting some time in late November. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That one was a Freudian slip -- Wikipedia will eat itself. Jbh ^Talk 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gah... Yes. Thanks. I spell like an illiterate eight year old. Jbh ^Talk 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Where is the red linked username located? The one in the letter looks OK and I do not see any on this page. Alternately, you may remove the space if you would prefer not to post it here. Jbh ^Talk 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Meta, at the start of the username request change. Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed + some spelling too. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Doh... Someone needs to come up with an autocorrect that makes sure one types the correct word as well as spelling it properly. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autocorrect is a pubic menace. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her (Ode to a spellchecker)

Eye halve a spelling chequer.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my Rhea view,
Miss steaks aye Ken knot see.

Iran this Poe Em threw it.
Your shore lee glad two no.
It is core wrecked in every weigh,
My chequer tolled me sew.

A Czech her is a bless sing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right stiles ewe can reed,
And AIDS me when aye rime.

Eye strike a key and type a word.
And weight four it two say.
Weather eye am wrong oar write.
It shows me strait aweigh.

Each frays come posed up on my screen,
Is trussed two bee a Joule.
The check Ur pours o'er every word,
To Czech sum spelling rule.

As soon AZ a mist ache is maid.
It nose bee fore two long.
And eye can put the error rite.
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Bee fore a veiling cheque curs,
hour spelling mite decline.
If wee R. lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid two wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling,
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den,
With words sew fare too here.

2 rite with care is quite a fete,
Of witch won should bee proud;
and wee mussed dew the best week Anne,
Sew flaws argh[5] knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays.
Such soft wear four pea seize.
And why eye brake in 2 averse
With righting sure too please.

^{Attribution: I composed the above as a modification of various versions found on the web labeled "author unknown" or some such. Later I discovered this page, which appears to document the original sources, and my version is clearly a heavily modified derivative version of what is listed on that page. The basic idea goes back at least as far as A Misspelled Tail by Elizabeth T. Corbett, originally published in the children's magazine St. Nicholas in 1893. To whatever extent the above is my own work, I release it under the Creative Commons CC0 license. --Guy Macon}

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC) ^{[Citation Needed]}[reply]

Perfect! Although, for me, it is more descriptive of my text without spell check than with. :)

If you don't get anywhere with the Ombudsman or at Jimmy's talk page, have you considered the meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee? The charter (see meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee Charter) was last revised in 2013. The current members (2018-19) are Nataliia Tymkiv (Chair), James Heilman, Dariusz Jemielniak, Raju Narisetti, Maria Sefidari, with non-voting advisory members: Ira B. Matetsky, Gayle Karen Young, Tim Moritz Hector, Ido Ivry, Kat Walsh, and staff liaison Chuck Roslof. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Thank you, I did not know such a committee existed. I have spent the last four or so days writing a structured analytic document in response to the request for "proof" from the Stewards re my un-vanish request. I am spending today extricating from the Tar-Baby it has become. Much of the material I looked at to show "more scrutiny needed" is ending up as out-of-scope for enwp so this committee seems a good place to go. I think the document actually makes the case for an independent and accessible ombudsman as well or better than for the un-vanishing. Although I see both cases as strong. Jbh ^Talk 18:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list of members appears to be slightly outdated (in particular, I left that committee at the end of last year—Ira Matetsky is me). When I was a non-voting member, the Committee focused on issues affecting the structure of the Board itself, such as WMF By-Law amendments. I don't know whether it would be the right committee of the Board to address WMF-EnWiki communications issues, although the presence of both Doc James (Heilman) and Pundit (Jemielniak), both of whom have edited on this wiki, would be a plus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you. From what you say it does not seem like it would be an appropriate venue for my questions/issues of which a functioning ombudsman is really only tangential. Let me see if I can explain in a way that will not potentially run afoul our rules here:

• The Fram case is odd. It is the result of the WMF using an untested new power in a situation where the object of that attention was an asshole to some people but far and away not the type of case where a global ban is made. There is some evidence which I have pointed out on the PD page that can be seen as an indication the ban was out of process even for them. This is where the ombudsman question came up, the plain reading of the confidentiality agreement seems off from the applicability the Foundation is claiming.
• The community discussion, long before I heard of the case, focused on the "conspiracy theory" that a board member or some such had influence, directly or indirectly, on the T&S decision process leading to the ban.
• From the previous issues about WMFAU and editing in relation to the Paralympics come up
• This leads to a Wikiversity tender for $110,000.00 and $15,000.00 in article writing prizes. Which leads to questions about paid editing and the influence on the events leading up to the case.
• From this I decide to look at the participants in three germane conflicts and, from the budgeting in the tender and prize payouts see the weight of dollars on those cases ie how much did various participants have riding on the the overall topic of Paralympic editing. I also looked at one article which was brought up elsewhere so it is unlikely to be representative.

  The numbers were derived by taking what was budgeted in [6] and dividing it equally among people assigned to each line item. I identified the prize winners from here and their value from section 2 of this diff. The '$ weights' which resulted are:

  1. $23,300.00
  2. $48,300.00
  3. $41,835.00
  4. $45,800.00

     Note: these are not per article. If a individual editor was assigned $10,000.00 from the method I described then any dispute they participate in has $10,000.00 added to the 'weight'. All it is is a proxy for motivation to 'win' in disputes over and above a regular un-paid volunteer.

• Since the tender expired I wanted to see if the project continued. I found indication that in 2013 WMFAU was seeking $125,000.00 to participate in an ARC Linkage grant program. In 2014, after 'consultations' with WMF, and withdrawal of the funding request from WMF WMFAU said they would not be participating in the linkage grant but they would continue to support the Paralympics.
  • Curious about the Linkage grant I looked it up. It is active, starting in FY 2013 with an original funding level of $244,266.00 and showing the current funding level as $262,906.57. The associated project centers around Wikipedia editing. One of the three organizations listed as grantees, both in 2013 and currently, is "Wikimedia Australia". Also, a Wikipedian is listed as a "PI" (I assume 'principal investigator') in 2013 but not currently. They edit under their own name and have not, to my knowledge, been discussed by the community in relation to the Fram case.

There are lots of innocent reasons for this so, no accusations or implications intended here. It does show that the potential exists for paid editing being a driving factor in some of the conflicts leading up to the Fram case. That can be addressed by the community so it is the focus of my comments. Any ideas?? Jbh ^Talk 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I sent the detailed narrative of the above as well as the structured analytic document relating to the general circumstances around the Fram case to Arbcom via the functionaries list so you should get a copy. @Carcharoth: email me if you would like a copy. Most of the material can be posted on-wiki. All elements of infomation presented in the Annex are either from Wikimedia related sites or the result of, to the best of my recolection, "one step away" from material on those sites. The only reason for not presenting this on-wiki is I do not feel like Wikicoding it and it could be seen as running afoul recent additions to WP:OUTING disallowing 'digging' for information on other Wikimedia sites. Jbh ^Talk 01:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is that the OC will refuse to touch this mess, with a 20 feet barge-pole or so and simply ask you to consult T&S.

At any case, they closed two cases out of fourteen, last half of the year. Statistics for previous years are botched up and don't match, when roll-counted. And, I happened to know names, who regularly flies off to Wikimania and other blah blah WMF conferences, every few months but did shit nothing whilst on the committee. So, don't have much of any expectations. (You might follow the discussion and further linked discussions from meta:User_talk:Teles#Please, for the on-wiki aspects.) ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That thread was enlightening. I'm making a permalink to it for reference. In truth, I do not believe the concept of a community volunteer ombudsman is workable here not when they are chartered to work for and report to the WMF Board. The whole point of an ombudsman is to be an advocate for the complaint. The more I look into the WMF the more discouraged I get. Jbh ^Talk 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]