Framageddon in Review (split from "Arbcom Elections 2021")

[turnedworm]

Moderator's note: This thread was split from here, since the posts did indeed seem to be mostly off-topic for the Arbcom Elections thread.

People should ask the Worm about how he handled himself in the Frammageddon.

Search this page for 'worm'.

Given what has been shown in this thread

Dave is hardly going to qualify for the Profiles In Courage award.

I'm right here. What would you like to know?

[Vigilant]

People should ask the Worm about how he handled himself in the Frammageddon.

Search this page for 'worm'.

Given what has been shown in this thread

Dave is hardly going to qualify for the Profiles In Courage award.

I'm right here. What would you like to know?

Given what has been uncovered about Laura Hale, Maria Sefidari, the paid editing, the corrupt off-wiki coordination, etc, how do you square your participation in the Frammageddon?

I was going to quote some sections, but I think a better approach would be to ask you about your comments on this page?

Do these strike you as the words of an honest and impartial 'arbitrator'?


P.S. Let me say that you were not the worst of ARBCOM in the Frammageddon, but neither did you rise to the challenge of being fair and impartial when faced pressure from WMF/T&S.

[Vigilant]

@worm

In retrospect, does the Fram case seem like it was well handled?

In particular, are you proud of what you wrote?

Given this does ARBCOMs behavior seem good enough?

How would you have felt to be on the receiving end of this 'case'?


While this question was posed to someone else, I'd really like to hear your answers to it.

[turnedworm]

Given what has been uncovered about Laura Hale, Maria Sefidari, the paid editing, the corrupt off-wiki coordination, etc, how do you square your participation in the Frammageddon?

2019 was turbulent for the entire community, the vast majority of the committee stepped down or stepped back for a significant period (I blame none of them, it was not fun) - My participation was with the focus of "righting the ship". I wrote the initial decision, practically single handed - I proposed and supported the only finding actively critical of WMF. I made the best decisions I could at the time, based on the information I had.

I have watched what was uncovered since, and found it interesting. But I do think you are prescribing everything to a single individual or single conspiracy. I've seen the document, there were multiple cases that were in there. I also know Fram and their history and had personally warned them that they were the common factor in multiple issues and needed to introspect over a year earlier.

I was going to quote some sections, but I think a better approach would be to ask you about your comments on this page?

Do these strike you as the words of an honest and impartial 'arbitrator'?


P.S. Let me say that you were not the worst of ARBCOM in the Frammageddon, but neither did you rise to the challenge of being fair and impartial when faced pressure from WMF/T&S.

Regarding those sections - I was trying to square the circle of a private / public case. I failed and yes, I'm willing to admit that.

[Vigilant]

Given what has been uncovered about Laura Hale, Maria Sefidari, the paid editing, the corrupt off-wiki coordination, etc, how do you square your participation in the Frammageddon?

I have watched what was uncovered since, and found it interesting. But I do think you have are prescribing everything to a single individual or single conspiracy. I've seen the document, there were multiple cases that were in there. I also know Fram and their history and had personally warned them that they were the common factor in multiple issues and needed to introspect over a year earlier.

From here

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.

Can you see why your response stretches credulity to the breaking point?

Can you provide a more plausible explanation for the Frammageddon other than Laura Hale's corrupt paid editing getting stepped on?

Do you acknowledge that Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari Huici were behaving unethically?



P.S. Let me say that I appreciate you engaging here and answering questions which must be more than a little uncomfortable.

However, the Frammageddon was an unparalleled disaster on many levels, not the least of which was the shameful nature of the ARBCOM case. Star Chamber is not an exaggeration.

[turnedworm]

@worm

In retrospect, does the Fram case seem like it was well handled?

As above, no. But - I will point to the impossible position of a public / private case, a very turbulent time, and lack of cohesion as a committee.

In particular, are you proud of what you wrote?

I got some things wrong with hindsight. But I got the committee and community through, and for that I have a sense of pride, though I don't consider it my best moment.

Given this does ARBCOMs behavior seem good enough?

I was disgusted by that. However, I maintain the belief that Maria did not actively request any sanction on Fram, there was no need to believe that she did through Occam's razor. And given the information we had, and circumstances we were in, yes - good "enough".

How would you have felt to be on the receiving end of this 'case'?

Exactly as Fram felt, I'm sure.

While this question was posed to someone else, I'd really like to hear your answers to it.

I believe I have answered, where I feel your judgement is incorrect in my comments. However, I also see no reason to try to persuade you as I freely admit that your view is a) possible and b) plausible. I just don't believe it to be the most likely.

[Vigilant]

While this question was posed to someone else, I'd really like to hear your answers to it.

I believe I have answered, where I feel your judgement is incorrect in my comments. However, I also see no reason to try to persuade you as I freely admit that your view is a) possible and b) plausible. I just don't believe it to be the most likely.

I don't understand your answer and I don't want to characterize your response, so I'll break out the items as individual questions.



Did Laura Hale do good work?

Was Laura Hale being paid for editing en.wp against policy?

Was Fram protecting the wiki from a serial producer of garbage promotional articles?

Had many other wikipedians complained about Laura Hale's garbage articles?

Did Maria Sefidari Huici intervene on Laura Hale's behalf while pretending she didn't know her?

Did Laura Hale receive exceptional help from T&S?

Was Laura Hale the central complainant in the Frammageddon?

Was Laura Hale manipulating the process as she has been shown to do in countless prior instances?

Was Fram was afforded a fair hearing and a chance to clear his name?

If Laura Hale had not been the wife of the Chair of the Board of Trustees, would she have been indef blocked for her shenanigans?


Yes/No or other answers are fine.

[turnedworm]

From here

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.

Can you see why your response stretches credulity to the breaking point?

Can you provide a more plausible explanation for the Frammageddon other than Laura Hale's corrupt paid editing getting stepped on?

I am saying that I think there is a good chance that Fram kaiboshing so many WMF engineering projects, combined with the other community members that he had upset would be sufficient for the same outcome without any link between.

I also think that it is quite plausible that WMF made a decision to act without instruction from the top.

Do you acknowledge that Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari Huici were behaving unethically?

I think that has been shown multiple times subsequently

P.S. Let me say that I appreciate you engaging here and answering questions which must be more than a little uncomfortable.

However, the Frammageddon was an unparalleled disaster on many levels, not the least of which was the shameful nature of the ARBCOM case. Star Chamber is not an exaggeration.

I mean it when I say, I am willing to discuss things head on. I do not intend to breach confidentiality here and do not particularly want to speak ill of individual editors, whatever my opinion of them. (Also mods, I would certainly appreciate these comments being moved to a Fram thread - since I don't want to hijack Arbcom elections thread)

I can imagine the outcome you would have wanted to see and would describe as non-shameful. I'd like to ask you - how would you square that with what you know of English Wikipedia culture.

If we'd pushed down that route, would things not have ended up more fractured as a community? Would the day not have been hastened?
Not my goal.

[turnedworm]

Did Laura Hale do good work?

I'd rather not answer that question, as it would simply be my opinion and the individual in question has left.

Was Laura Hale being paid for editing en.wp against policy?

I believe so.

Was Fram protecting the wiki from a serial producer of garbage promotional articles?

Fram did this often, though acted as a sledgehammer when they did.

Had many other wikipedians complained about Laura Hale's garbage articles?

I don't know the answer to this.

Did Maria Sefidari Huici intervene on Laura Hale's behalf while pretending she didn't know her?

Not to my recall, but I have a notoriously bad memory and would believe that she had.

Did Laura Hale receive exceptional help from T&S?

Assuming that you are referring to the Fram scenario - what happened to Fram was exceptional, so yes.

Was Laura Hale the central complainant in the Frammageddon?

I can't answer this. I believe there were multiple complainants and multiple situations.

Was Laura Hale manipulating the process as she has been shown to do in countless prior instances?

Quite possibly.

Was Fram was afforded a fair hearing and a chance to clear his name?

We attempted to give them one. They are still editing to this day.

If Laura Hale had not been the wife of the Chair of the Board of Trustees, would she have been indef blocked for her shenanigans?

I do not believe so - due to the way Wikipedia struggles to handle long term problematic "good faith" editors

[Vigilant]

From here

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.

Can you see why your response stretches credulity to the breaking point?

Can you provide a more plausible explanation for the Frammageddon other than Laura Hale's corrupt paid editing getting stepped on?

I am saying that I think there is a good chance that Fram kaiboshing so many WMF engineering projects, combined with the other community members that he had upset would be sufficient for the same outcome without any link between.

Interesting.
Is the bolded quote part of T&S's remit?
Seems like this alone should result in the disbanding of the entire department.
Political officers for the WMF?

I also think that it is quite plausible that WMF made a decision to act without instruction from the top.

Let me ask this in a more succinct manner: If Laura Hale had not been involved, would T&S have banned Fram?

P.S. Let me say that I appreciate you engaging here and answering questions which must be more than a little uncomfortable.

However, the Frammageddon was an unparalleled disaster on many levels, not the least of which was the shameful nature of the ARBCOM case. Star Chamber is not an exaggeration.

I mean it when I say, I am willing to discuss things head on. I do not intend to breach confidentiality here and do not particularly want to speak ill of individual editors, whatever my opinion of them. (Also mods, I would certainly appreciate these comments being moved to a Fram thread - since I don't want to hijack Arbcom elections thread)

I'm not asking for you to breach confidentiality.
I don't think there's much of that left, to be honest, given what the WMF (Maggie in particular) has spilled, what we've dug up on WO and what came out in the Frammageddon.

I can imagine the outcome you would have wanted to see and would describe as non-shameful. I'd like to ask you - how would you square that with what you know of English Wikipedia culture.

I don't understand your question.

If we'd pushed down that route, would things not have ended up more fractured as a community?

I don't think so.
"Due to the extremely irregular nature of this case, we are vacating all sanctions and opening a public case."

Done.

Would the day not have been hastened?
Not my goal.

No.

You had an excellent chance to stand up and demand ethical behavior.

Shades of Isildur.

[Vigilant]

Did Laura Hale do good work?

I'd rather not answer that question, as it would simply be my opinion and the individual in question has left.

Fair enough.
I think there's enough on WO alone to answer this question.
The thread, for example.

Was Fram protecting the wiki from a serial producer of garbage promotional articles?

Fram did this often, though acted as a sledgehammer when they did.

I think it takes a bit for Fram to get wound up and Laura was a recidivist problem child on en.wp.

Had many other wikipedians complained about Laura Hale's garbage articles?

I don't know the answer to this.

Here's a post by a known wikipedian

Did Maria Sefidari Huici intervene on Laura Hale's behalf while pretending she didn't know her?

Not to my recall, but I have a notoriously bad memory and would believe that she had.

Here's a post.
This is the very WHY of why ARBCOM should have insisted on a public case. INSISTED.

Was Fram was afforded a fair hearing and a chance to clear his name?

We attempted to give them one. They are still editing to this day.

This is disingenuous.

[turnedworm]

Interesting.
Is the bolded quote part of T&S's remit?
Seems like this alone should result in the disbanding of the entire department.
Political officers for the WMF?

I don't know enough of T&S remit, but I'm sure they could argue it was. Simply, I am putting forward an opinion that there were other factors involved.

Let me ask this in a more succinct manner: If Laura Hale had not been involved, would T&S have banned Fram?

I don't know. The best I can give you is maybe.
The fact that they had confidence that they could ban an admin from a single project for a year and it be accepted makes me think it would happen sooner or later.
Look back at the times this sort of thing has happened in the past. Remember Superprotect?

I don't understand your question.

If we'd pushed down that route, would things not have ended up more fractured as a community?

I don't think so.
"Due to the extremely irregular nature of this case, we are vacating all sanctions and opening a public case."

Done.

I'm disappointed. There's an entire side of the community who would appear and say "hang on a moment - Fram did xyz, he needs to be punished" and another side who will say "Hang on, WMF needs to be hung out to dry for this".
There'd be cries of forking. There would be consternation and bikesheds would be painted.
Simply, there would be double the talking there already was.

[Vigilant]

(Also mods, I would certainly appreciate these comments being moved to a Fram thread - since I don't want to hijack Arbcom elections thread)

I would request that the mods not move this.

The Frammageddon was the central case for ARBCOM during the last term.

There are multiple reasons to discuss this case and how candidates for the next ARBCOM dealt with this case at the time.

Questions of:
* Fundamental due process
* WMF vs Communitah sovereignty
* Regulatory capture of the ARBCOM by Trust&Safety
* Jimmy's role in the WMF
* Corruption in the Board
* RfA processes

[turnedworm]

Was Fram was afforded a fair hearing and a chance to clear his name?

We attempted to give them one. They are still editing to this day.

This is disingenuous.

I can see why you say that.

I did not see how to give Fram a fairer hearing than we gave him based on the constraints we were under.

I am perfectly willing to admit that others may have done a better job than me.

[turnedworm]

(Also mods, I would certainly appreciate these comments being moved to a Fram thread - since I don't want to hijack Arbcom elections thread)

I would request that the mods not move this.

The Frammageddon was the central case for ARBCOM during the last term.

There are multiple reasons to discuss this case and how candidates for the next ARBCOM dealt with this case at the time.

Questions of:
* Fundamental due process
* WMF vs Communitah sovereignty
* Regulatory capture of the ARBCOM by Trust&Safety
* Jimmy's role in the WMF
* Corruption in the Board
* RfA processes

No, it wasn't. Fram was 2019. I've been re-elected that year, remained on arbcom 2 more years. No other arbs who are coming up for re-election were arbs that year, besides KrakatoaKatie who states that she is not standing for re-election.

The only candidate that this discussion is relevant to is me.

[Vigilant]

Interesting.
Is the bolded quote part of T&S's remit?
Seems like this alone should result in the disbanding of the entire department.
Political officers for the WMF?

I don't know enough of T&S remit, but I'm sure they could argue it was. Simply, I am putting forward an opinion that there were other factors involved.

Fair enough.

It sure is antithetical to the 'Trust & Safety' monkier if they are actually an enforcement wing of the WMF to mandate correct thought on Teh Communitah on behalf of the WeMakeFailures Engineering Team.

That would be some 'Hasten the Day' shit right there.

Let me ask this in a more succinct manner: If Laura Hale had not been involved, would T&S have banned Fram?

I don't know. The best I can give you is maybe.
The fact that they had confidence that they could ban an admin from a single project for a year and it be accepted makes me think it would happen sooner or later.
Look back at the times this sort of thing has happened in the past. Remember Superprotect?

Superprotect was a fight with the whole of Teh Communitah.
Frammageddon was targeted at a single long term user who 'just happened' to be policing the corrupt wife of the Board of Trustees...

Occam's Razor and all that.

I don't understand your question.

If we'd pushed down that route, would things not have ended up more fractured as a community?

I don't think so.
"Due to the extremely irregular nature of this case, we are vacating all sanctions and opening a public case."

Done.

I'm disappointed. There's an entire side of the community who would appear and say "hang on a moment - Fram did xyz, he needs to be punished" and another side who will say "Hang on, WMF needs to be hung out to dry for this".
There'd be cries of forking. There would be consternation and bikesheds would be painted.
Simply, there would be double the talking there already was.

After this all exploded, Jimmy and the WMF said that they would stand by whatever ARBCOM decided.

What would have happened if ARBCOM had said, "ARBCOM will not give countenance to secret trials. We are voiding the entirety of the Trust&Safety decision and are opening a public case on this matter in accordance with long standing en.wp policies." ?

You had this one chance to do the right thing and you squandered it.

[turnedworm]

After this all exploded, Jimmy and the WMF said that they would stand by whatever ARBCOM decided.

What would have happened if ARBCOM had said, "ARBCOM will not give countenance to secret trials. We are voiding the entirety of the Trust&Safety decision and are opening a public case on this matter in accordance with long standing en.wp policies." ?

You had this one chance to do the right thing and you squandered it.

Jimmy also said that he'd always vote with the community in board votes. That's nice.

It may have been flowers and roses. It may not.

[Vigilant]

(Also mods, I would certainly appreciate these comments being moved to a Fram thread - since I don't want to hijack Arbcom elections thread)

I would request that the mods not move this.

The Frammageddon was the central case for ARBCOM during the last term.

There are multiple reasons to discuss this case and how candidates for the next ARBCOM dealt with this case at the time.

Questions of:
* Fundamental due process
* WMF vs Communitah sovereignty
* Regulatory capture of the ARBCOM by Trust&Safety
* Jimmy's role in the WMF
* Corruption in the Board
* RfA processes

No, it wasn't. Fram was 2019. I've been re-elected that year, remained on arbcom 2 more years. No other arbs who are coming up for re-election were arbs that year, besides KrakatoaKatie who states that she is not standing for re-election.

The only candidate that this discussion is relevant to is me.

Fair point.
Allow me to restate my position a bit.

The Frammageddon stands as one of the seminal cases that has come before ARBCOM.

Asking ARBCOM candidates what they think of the underlying issues inherent in this case is akin to asking judicial candidates their thoughts on Korematsu v. United States.

Korematsu_v._United_States (T-H-L)

[Vigilant]

Please accept my genuine thanks for answering my questions directly.

[Vigilant]

One last question,

With the benefit of hindsight, what would you have done differently on the Frammageddon case?

[turnedworm]

Please accept my genuine thanks for answering my questions directly.

You are welcome, and I will now say a bit.

I am willing to answer the same questions on Wikipedia, to the same detail, though I'm aware I will get a more hostile line of questioning here. I don't believe in the banned = unperson. I believe the forum here is a lot better than it was - below the belt comments and nastiness has cleared up, though Vigilant, I will say that if there is one member who could do with introspection - it would be you.

The pride you take in the misery of others. The obsession over people who don't (or shouldn't) matter. I don't believe I am the person who will make any difference to who you are online, and I'm sure you couldn't give a shit what I think of you - but I am aware of your skills and knowledge, and such pettiness should be beneath you.

And if mods prefer the discussion here, I don't mind, I certainly accept Vigilant's updated reason for keeping it - I just realised that I'd never actually be directly asked such questions and it made more sense to be in a Fram thread, rather than and election thread.

We should expect a dozen candidates, and I'm not likely to be an interesting one.

[turnedworm]

One last question,

With the benefit of hindsight, what would you have done differently on the Frammageddon case?

I don't dwell on the past, what's done is done.

But -
The private / public evidence didn't work.
Fram should have seen the document.
The scatter gun approach of remedies didn't work.
I should have taken more responsibility for the case. I largely ran it, and if anyone deserved to be the focus of the blame, it should be me.

[Vigilant]

Please accept my genuine thanks for answering my questions directly.

You are welcome, and I will now say a bit.

I am willing to answer the same questions on Wikipedia, to the same detail, though I'm aware I will get a more hostile line of questioning here. I don't believe in the banned = unperson. I believe the forum here is a lot better than it was - below the belt comments and nastiness has cleared up, though Vigilant, I will say that if there is one member who could do with introspection - it would be you.

I can see how you would think that, but I do what I do intentionally.

There are lots of bullies on and around en.wp who take delight in tormenting those who are unable to defend themselves.
Most recently, Secretname101 and his article of shame.

They thrive on the culture of anonymity and cruelty.

The pride you take in the misery of others. The obsession over people who don't (or shouldn't) matter. I don't believe I am the person who will make any difference to who you are online, and I'm sure you couldn't give a shit what I think of you - but I am aware of your skills and knowledge, and such pettiness should be beneath you.

Target selection and weapons load out.

Who have I targeted that you feel did not deserve my attentions?
Feel free to expound.

I'm honestly interested in your viewpoint on this topic.

[Vigilant]

One last question,

With the benefit of hindsight, what would you have done differently on the Frammageddon case?

I don't dwell on the past, what's done is done.

But -
The private / public evidence didn't work.
Fram should have seen the document.
The scatter gun approach of remedies didn't work.
I should have taken more responsibility for the case. I largely ran it, and if anyone deserved to be the focus of the blame, it should be me.

I think retrospectives/post mortems inform what future proceedings should look like ... or not look like.

If we can't talk about what went wrong, how can we avoid doing it again?

[turnedworm]

Who have I targeted that you feel did not deserve my attentions?
Feel free to expound.

I'm honestly interested in your viewpoint on this topic.

If you are genuinely interested and willing to listen. I'll come back to you on that.

[Vigilant]

Who have I targeted that you feel did not deserve my attentions?
Feel free to expound.

I'm honestly interested in your viewpoint on this topic.

If you are genuinely interested and willing to listen. I'll come back to you on that.

I am.
You can take this to PM if you'd rather not bring up other people in public.

[Moral Hazard]

(Also mods, I would certainly appreciate these comments being moved to a Fram thread - since I don't want to hijack Arbcom elections thread)

I would request that the mods not move this.

The Frammageddon was the central case for ARBCOM during the last term.

There are multiple reasons to discuss this case and how candidates for the next ARBCOM dealt with this case at the time.

Questions of:
* Fundamental due process
* WMF vs Communitah sovereignty
* Regulatory capture of the ARBCOM by Trust&Safety
* Jimmy's role in the WMF
* Corruption in the Board
* RfA processes

No, it wasn't. Fram was 2019. I've been re-elected that year, remained on arbcom 2 more years. No other arbs who are coming up for re-election were arbs that year, besides KrakatoaKatie who states that she is not standing for re-election.

The only candidate that this discussion is relevant to is me.

So far, this has been one of the best conversations here.
Thanks to both.