92.31.137.218 (talk) No edit summary Tag: Undo |
Winged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 92.31.137.218 (talk) to last version by Winged Blades of Godric Tag: Rollback |
||
Line 330: | Line 330: | ||
:::::{{re|Curly Turkey}} You're not seriously telling me you believe there is a "vocal minority" who ''sincerely'' support sanctions for "fuck" but not genuine incivility, are you? I will admit I forgot one category in my above comment: (c) editors who sincerely think that all cursing and swearing should be forbidden, and either don't know or don't care if/when they find themselves making common cause with disruptive POV-pushers; but that group generally place other words (the C-word, for example) in the same boat as "fuck" so they can't be who you're talking about. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC) |
:::::{{re|Curly Turkey}} You're not seriously telling me you believe there is a "vocal minority" who ''sincerely'' support sanctions for "fuck" but not genuine incivility, are you? I will admit I forgot one category in my above comment: (c) editors who sincerely think that all cursing and swearing should be forbidden, and either don't know or don't care if/when they find themselves making common cause with disruptive POV-pushers; but that group generally place other words (the C-word, for example) in the same boat as "fuck" so they can't be who you're talking about. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I meant "fuck" as a stand-in for the [[Seven dirty words]]—no, I don't believe they're singling out "fuck" but giving a pass to other such words. And, yes, there are editors who believe all cuss words should be sanctioned—some of them are sincere, and others are trying to game the system. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "JFC" Turkey]] <span style="color: Red;">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 03:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC) |
:::::: I meant "fuck" as a stand-in for the [[Seven dirty words]]—no, I don't believe they're singling out "fuck" but giving a pass to other such words. And, yes, there are editors who believe all cuss words should be sanctioned—some of them are sincere, and others are trying to game the system. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "JFC" Turkey]] <span style="color: Red;">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 03:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
=== "Climbing the Reichstag with or without my Spider-Man costume" === |
|||
{{xt|An ex-Arbitrator, [[Special:Contributions/Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], apparently does not want the Committee to hear cases referred to it by the Community. With sentiment like this, does [[Special:Contributions/Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] really think his proposal is going to fly?}} |
|||
Please copy the undermentioned to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case]]. The reference will be found at bullet point 2 (struck) of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 in the evidence link "Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the following proposed statement of facts." |
|||
== CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise == |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Stevepeterson|Stevepeterson]] ([[User talk:Stevepeterson|talk]]) '''at''' 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Involved parties === |
|||
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{userlinks|Stevepeterson}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*[diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise] |
|||
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_Personal_Attacks_with_disgracing_insults_by_Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise |
|||
* Link 2 |
|||
=== Statement by Stevepeterson === |
|||
In a discussion in [[Talk:North_Macedonia]] I expressed my opinion that wikipedia should adhere to the recently signed [[Prespa agreement]] between [[North Macedonia]] and [[Greece]] in favour of peace in wikipedia. Specifically I shared my opinion that wikipedia could adopt term "North Macedonia's" as an adjective to the State's name: North Macedonia. This (along with "of North Macedonia") is the adjective recommended by [https://mfa.gov.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2975:prespa-agreement-media-guidelines&catid=52&Itemid=684&lang=mk "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia"]. Admin User [[User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise]] has expressed that this would lead to poor English grammar and he is an advocate of the term Macedonian as the adjective of North Macedonia. As the discussion with other users went on he started to personally attack me using disgracing words and insults such as: |
|||
''you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears.'' |
|||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884714936&oldid=884700282 |
|||
And: |
|||
''you really need to shut up and learn some English and some proper grammatical terminology before you expose your incompetence further here. It's getting quite embarrassing to watch.'' |
|||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884848956&oldid=884848841 |
|||
Later, he offended all participants in the discussion by trying to collapse the whole conversation claiming "Embarrassing display of linguistic incompetence." |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884847688&oldid=884847206 |
|||
I tried to explain that I feel insulted and disgraced so he should stop this behaviour by posting on his talk page: |
|||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884730558&oldid=884559635 |
|||
''I would like to inform you that I consider your "you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears." a Derogatory comment and personal attack to me. ''. |
|||
His response had no regret or apology: ''You don't need to inform me of that. What you do need to do, however, is to learn how to use talk pages.'' |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884735657&oldid=884730558 |
|||
I brought to to ANI but I received so many personal insults there by Administrators biased towards [[USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise]]. There not only did he make the reported comments, he doubled down by linking to an article discussing {{xt|people of low ability [who] have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize this basic lack of ability.}}. |
|||
I have not been rude neither at the ANI nor at the initial discussion page so there should be no action to be taken against me. [[USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise]] on the other hand, has selected a telling link (against himself). He says {{xt|There's never a nice way of telling an incompetent person that they are incompetent}} which is extremely inappropriate. FP@S has hidden a discussion on my talk page and I believe that his action ([[WP:INVOLVED]] is a misuse of the revision deletion tool. |
|||
The insults I received made lose control of the ANI and instead of a resolution of the conflict with [[USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise]], I am now proposed for Site Ban. |
|||
=== Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise === |
|||
=== Statement by Floquenbeam === |
|||
Dude... |
|||
=== Statement by Khajidha === |
|||
While Future Perfect's wording was extreme, the fact remains that you demonstrate a lack of proficiency in the use of the English language. Especially considering that the argument is ''about'' proper English usage. You have been told numerous times, by numerous people, that the phrasing you wish to use is not proper English. You continue to argue based on your mistaken definitions (possessive nouns are NOT adjectives) and seem to refuse to learn from the grammar lessons that everyone is trying to give you. You even engaged in emotional blackmail (see this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevepeterson&oldid=885173108), insinuating that you were contemplating suicide based on your treatment here and that others in similar situations in the future may also contemplate such actions. The proposed ban is MORE than earned. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 17:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|||
=== Statement by Legacypac=== |
|||
The filer is about to be CBAN'd at ANi so nothing needs to be done on this request except close it for they will not be able to participate. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by 92.19.174.217 === |
|||
There is a procedural error here by the clerk. While it is true that he acted correctly at 19:22, 26 February, removing a case which the Committee had declined, that decline was without prejudice to a further filing should the alternative dispute resolution mechanism fail. See judgments: |
|||
{{talkquote|An Arbitration case should be the last resort if other dispute resolution attempts have failed. ...}} -GorillaWarfare 18:40, 24 February 2019 |
|||
{{talkquote|It looks like on occasion it would be justified to shove a sock into FutPerf's mouth ...}} - AGK 07:12, 25 February 2019 |
|||
The second opinion shows that a second case would very likely have been accepted. The second filing was appropriate because by 16:46 on 26 February it was apparent that there would be no action against FP@S (see Legacypac's statement). His reasoning is flawed - the recent case brought by Twitbookspacetube against Winhunter continued after the filer was banned, and Winhunter went on to be de-sysopped. The only way the second case can be disposed of is by the Arbitrators giving their opinions in the usual manner - the clerk's removal of it at 19:25, 26 February, with an entry in the log that Arbitrators had declined it ''that day'' was out of process. Most, if not all Arbitrators, would have been unaware of the case because it was removed 1 1/2 hours after filing. |
|||
Turning to Khajidha's statement, an inquest yesterday was discussing the deaths of four teenage soldiers at Deepcut training barracks between 1995 and 2002 from gunshot wounds amid allegations of bullying and abuse. The allegations against FP@S have been confirmed by Committee judgments spanning ten years. In the present climate, if social media platforms are not seen to be taking effective action against this it is likely that governments will do it for them. |
|||
My comments at the ANI were removed by that interfering busybody [[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|Fortuna Imperatrix Tuesday]], who claimed to have taken a break from editing when he was actually socking aggressively as an IP on pages he had previously posted comment on. If he starts playing up here I recommend an immediate block. What I said there was this: |
|||
<blockquote>*'''Oppose''' The Foundation has never banned an editor for making sockpuppet allegations. SPI reports are turned down every day but the filers don't get indefinitely blocked. Anyways, Steve didn't make a sockpuppetry allegation, he just drew attention to those who did. So let's turn attention to the real issue here - FP@AS has accused an editor of alleging that he (FPAS) is "a self-declared sex worker" [[Special:Permalink/885051895#Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the following proposed statement of facts:]]. The Foundation ''has'' banned editors who have made comparable allegations and failed to provide supporting evidence despite having had years to do so. I have no particular interest in FP@S's sex life, other than to note that while other editors discuss their family life FP@S doesn't appear to have one - in which case it is legitimate to ask why not? Pinging @:Stevepeterson as I expect Serial Number 54129 or someone of his ilk to be along shortly to remove this !vote. '''Fun fact''':Beyond My Ken is regularly proposed at ANI for siteban for edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry etc. [[Special:Permalink/866661947#Going forward]]. 11:47, 26 February 2019.</blockquote> [[Special:Contributions/92.19.246.23|92.19.246.23]] ([[User talk:92.19.246.23|talk]]) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
I have a confession to make - last night I dreamt of FP@S. It's never happened before and I hope it never happens again. He has now been given a formal notice not to meddle with Arbitration pages, so when he gets blocked he can't say he wasn't warned. |
|||
From the London ''Daily Telegraph'' of 23 February [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/england/somerset/articles/how-to-heal-your-heart-in-somerset]: |
|||
<blockquote>I am a cynical old hack who has been taught to question everything. I had first heard about the Bridge Retreat last summer, after I burst into tears on a magazine editor when she asked me how I was. "I'm...fine," I wept, but of course I wasn’t. I was having another one of my depressions, one so furious that on several occasions I contemplated suicide over getting up.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>This isn't me making a joke - as a mental health campaigner, I am not the kind of person to make jokes about suicide. It was awful.</blockquote> |
|||
This case needs to be processed expeditiously. If it isn't, and something bad happens, the Foundation will want to know why it wasn't. [[Special:Contributions/217.34.36.106|217.34.36.106]] ([[User talk:217.34.36.106|talk]]) 10:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Quoting AGK in the ''Signpost'' case, it is actually irrelevant that the filer has been banned. As AGK says, |
|||
{{talkquote|We accept cases whenever our community mission would be best served by involuntarily imposing a binding decision.}} |
|||
We have here a case where an administrator was de-sysopped ten years ago for incivility and bullying. He has continued to be uncivil and he has continued to bully. No other administrator has enjoyed continued access to the tools after being de-sysopped for cause. It's time to iron out this anomaly. [[Special:Contributions/Bradv|Bradv]]'s action in hiding the case from the Committee is another example of his bad judgment - he previously caused a public relations disaster by deleting our article on Nobel Prizewinner Donna Strickland because he didn't consider the source (her faculty) to be "independent". The Committee should examine very carefully any application for promotion to full Clerk. |
|||
One of FP@S's complaints against Stevepeterson, which eventually resulted in him being banned, was an allegation (18:44, 25 February 2019) of his |
|||
{{xt|writing in deliberately obfuscated Greek in order to make it more difficult for outsiders to understand}}. |
|||
In January 2016 an editor made the following observation at DeltaQuad's unprotected talk page: |
|||
{{talkquote|In the sandbox two links from the "harasser"'s post are cited. What makes the respondent think The Rambling Man would have clicked on those links before replying? I have clicked on them. The first is claimed to be "a rant from another sock". It's actually a link to words written (yes, typed and saved) by the respondent which are so disgusting they would never be allowed in a family encyclopaedia.}} |
|||
I hurried over to FP@S's sandbox to see what FP@S had been saying. Here are the words I found: |
|||
* ''f*** off, idiot'' (14:45, 28 March 2009) [no asterisks in original] |
|||
* ''fu**ing sick of you ... stupid idiotic lot ... fu**ing sick'' (19:33, 14 April 2009) [no asterisks in original] |
|||
* ''What the f**k''(22:57, 19 April 2009) [no asterisks in original] |
|||
* ''the community can go f... itself'' (08:06, 3 September 2008) |
|||
At 13:02, 19 April 2009 FP@S was wishing everyone a Happy Easter. That's Macedonian (or even "North Macedonian") Easter. The comment gives the lie to his claim to be a Roman Catholic - Roman Catholics in Germany had celebrated Easter long before. 2 days, 2 hours and 50 minutes later he told an editor ''αι σιχτίρ μαλακισμένε''. I am reliably informed that the phrase means "F**k off, w*nk*r", but on its own the word ''μαλακισμένε'' is innocuous. @Stevepeterson's alleged "obfuscated Greek" is vicarage tea-party pleasantries by comparison. This was 6 days, 7 hours and 32 minutes after FP@S had told a Bulgarian academic that Bulgaria was "a banana republic". All remedies, up to and including siteban, must now be on the table. [[Special:Contributions/80.5.252.147|80.5.252.147]] ([[User talk:80.5.252.147|talk]]) 15:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/Favonian|Favonian]] has been busy at Hebrew calendar and its associated talk page. Last time I looked the article was locked for two years and on the talk page a response to a personal attack was removed and the editor blocked. Less than half a day earlier, at 21:26, 15 April, FP@S removed another comment, blocking the editor 31.127.81.232. This was two minutes after a sockpuppet investigation had been opened. FP@S didn't report in. The case was closed no action at 22:03, as was to be expected since there was zero evidence. '''FP@S is sabotaging the SPI process by taking administrative action and not logging what he has done.''' This is not an isolated instance - '''it happens all the time'''. He has been reported to the Committee hundreds of times in the past thirteen years but they decline to take action. The Committee is on record as stating that FP@S's [[WP:INVOLVED]] actions are not involved actions because when he makes them he believes in his mind that they are not involved actions. If a convicted murderer goes to his gaoler, says his sentence has expired and demands to be released does the gaoler let him out? This case was filed fifty days ago and '''it is intolerable that the Committee has not yet taken any steps to deal with it'''. I'm not blaming them because it was removed by a trainee clerk within ninety minutes and they may not even know about it. |
|||
I note that FP@S is now describing the Committee as a "heap of rubbish". I was under the impression that he was Greek ({{xt|Dear Baristam, as a card carrying honorary member of the "GREEK WIKIPEDIAN NATIONALIST JUNTA" I strongly object to your exposing our despicable methods in this way}} - 10:23, 20 December 2006). |
|||
However, I have just discovered that in April 2009 he kicked up a stink about the removal from the article about an Archbishop of Athens of sourced content implicating him in scandal. On the matter in hand, he says there is 'nothing to "separate"', but threatening a block to force out a consensus version and replace it with his Macedonist POV is classic WP:INVOLVED behaviour. Implicit in the words "final warning" is that the warner is an administrator. The timeline is awful. At 09:23 Gogo303 goes on FP@S' talk page and gives examples of undoubted Macedonist vandalism of Bulgarian churches. Now, we know what FP@S thinks of Bulgaria: |
|||
{{talkquote|Wow. I am really sorry for you, for having to live in a banana republic ... What a shame.}} - Future Perfect at Sunrise, 08:20, 15 April 2009 |
|||
Why is someone who describes Bulgaria as "a banana republic" allowed anywhere near east European articles? At 09:30 FP@S removes the examples and accuses Gogo of "forcing" the consensus version into the article. At 09:41 Gogo clarifies that the "vandalism" reference relates solely to desecration of churches. At 10:26 he politely points out that FP@S should discuss the issue on the talk page rather than edit war. At 10:27 FP@S does go to the talk page, but instead of taking up this eminently sensible suggestion he issues his "final warning", "justifying" it with a reference to an issue which had already been put to bed. There wasn't even one personal attack, let alone three. He then accuses Gogo of not "meet[ing] other people's good-faith opinions" and threatens to block. |
|||
Now fairly obviously, by this time Gogo would have done some basic research on FP@S, e.g. by accessing his user page, which contains an image of Wikipedia going up in flames on the left and a chimpanzee on the right. There are liberal references to him being an administrator, including the unpromising statement {{xt|This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level.}} |
|||
Replying to Banedon, the last ArbCom case against FP@S is in fact this one: [[Special:Permalink/885225348#CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise]], which still has to be adjudicated on. @Callanecc, @Courcelles, @Gogo303, @GorillaWarfare, @KrakatoaKatie, @Opabinia regalis, @Premeditated Chaos, possibly they could both be dealt with together? |
|||
A post from FP@S' sock account (12:33, 22 April 2009) under edit summary ''just fooling around a bit'' contains the Cyrillic letter Ж. The sock lost no time in vandalising the article currently titled "North Macedonia" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Macedonia&diff=prev&oldid=295993962]. I see Legacypac has been banned for using the word "bitch" once on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. Why has FP@S not been banned for multiple uses of the phrases "banned creep", "criminal harasser", etc. etc.? The only action performed by Favonian in a 15-hour period yesterday was a 2-year [[WP:INVOLVED]] block, based on the fantasy that an editor could travel 200 miles in 58 minutes (not allowing for the time spent composing, typing and saving the edit). |
|||
{{ping|Gogo303}} was probably right to go straight to Arbitration, bypassing ANI, after receiving FP@S' "I am just about to block you" warning. After all, Stevepeterson was blocked immediately he filed at ArbCom, having been brushed off at ANI. On Tuesday AGK noted: |
|||
{{talkquote|But you [FP@S] have history of acting while involved, and I will have no truck with admins who measure and calculate their wording ''just'' enough for it to go unnoticed by everyone other than the recipient.}} On Thursday he added that this {{xt|bodes poorly for the future.}} He then removed the last part of the comment, pointing out that it was a "tautology". Indeed it is, but it's none the worse for that - after all, the ''Book of Common Prayer'' is full of them. But then he continues, {{xt| ... I do not see this matter as part of a more troubling pattern.}} Seriously? [[Special:Contributions/188.221.78.85|188.221.78.85]] ([[User talk:188.221.78.85|talk]]) 07:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
A sockpuppet investigation was opened at 12:41 on Monday afternoon. FP@S blocked at 12:48, but, as usual, said nothing to nobody. It occurred to me that the reason why he said nothing to nobody is that he doesn't know what he is doing. I decided to test this theory by examining his block log. I concentrated on blocks with "VXfC" (or some variant) in the "reason" field, since this is what is entered in this field in his latest block. The editor blocked at 12:48, 6 May geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire. The editor blocked at 15:21, 4 May geolocates to Glasgow (not even the same country). The editor blocked at 12:40, 2 May geolocates to London. When we get back to 09:02, 26 April no "reason" is entered at all. Is any explanation to be found at SPI? Unfortunately not, as I pointed out earlier. |
|||
It's not only blocks that FP@S doesn't report in. The SPI report of 19:24, 7 May and RfPP request by [[Special:Contributions/Aloha27|Aloha27]] at 19:25 led to FP@S protecting Computus for one year at 19:39. Again he said nothing to nobody and it was left to the bot to make the report (which it did at 20:02). This immediately raises the question, what other pages has FP@S secretly protected? Well, he indefinitely protected Gregorian calendar at 08:05, 11 December 2016. The barney there was [[Special:Contributions/Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]]'s claim that: |
|||
{{xt|the Council of Trent approved a plan in 1563 for correcting the calendrical errors, requiring that the date of the vernal equinox be restored to that which it held at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and that an alteration to the calendar be designed to prevent future drift.}} |
|||
The Council said no such thing. What it did say [http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1545-1545,_Concilium_Tridentinum,_Canons_And_Decrees,_EN.pdf] was this: |
|||
{{xt|The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various ... books ... And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.}} |
|||
The article now says exactly what it said in 2016, with one difference - the date of the supposed canon has been changed from "1563" to "1545". |
|||
Another indefinite protection is Julian calendar, from 19 December 2017. The trigger here was a vandal removing a substantial block of content at 01:04, 16 December. Johnuniq added it back at 01:15. The vandal removed it again at 13:35, 18 December and at 14:43 an editor added it back, noting in the edit summary that the removal had been vandalism. At 12:22, 19 December [[Special:Contributions/AstroLynx|AstroLynx]] removed the content again, claiming the editor who removed the vandalism was the vandal! FP@S' protection came five minutes later. 400,000 people signed a petition asking for the first picture in Islamic calendar to be removed. AstroLynx told the RfC that the Prophet delivered his farewell sermon to a congregation of five from a mosque pulpit. It later emerged that he had delivered it on a hilltop in front of thousands of pilgrims while sitting on his camel. This morning AstroLynx reverted a good-faith edit to Coordinated Universal Time one minute after it was made. The edit corrected the false statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as Coordinated Universal Time, replacing it with the correct statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as UT1. The article was in fact unprotected on Saturday. The unprotecting administrator did not consult FP@S - ALL FP@S' protections should be reversed in this manner. |
|||
On 4 December 2016 FP@S protected Solar time indefinitely. The trigger for that appears to be the removal of the incorrect information |
|||
{{xt|the difference builds up until mean time is ahead of apparent time by about 14 minutes near February 6}} |
|||
and its replacement with the correct information: |
|||
{{xt|sundial behind the clock 14m 06s on 12 February with a smaller minimum on 26 July.}} |
|||
On Monday I had another dream - I opened an account on Wikipedia. [At this point the keyboard started typing in Cyrillic - I managed to correct it]. For many, such a dream can turn into a nightmare as rouge administrators hunt them down: |
|||
'''Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylized"''' |
|||
:'''Suspected sockpuppets''' |
|||
:* 96.43.171.209 |
|||
Three edits by IP account. All reinstated edits which were removed as sock edits by this banned user. - Aloha27 11:49, 12 October 2017 |
|||
:The edits being restored were by 31.52.216.116, which was blocked as a sockpuppet of User: **** *** *** *****. - Peter James 15:11, 12 October 2017 |
|||
--- |
|||
86.158.154.78, have you ever registered an account on Wikipedia? If the answer is no, then why not create an account for yourself, edit other articles for a month, and then try editing the one on [[Brexit]]?--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks Toddy1. Your link to [[WP:ADMINABUSE]] is exactly what I was looking for. It seems I have taken the right step to talk to EdJohnston first to give him a chance to reply. So let us see what he says, before we take it to the next level. (Do you know anything about this NeilN interloper? - I saw his comment on the Sexual Intercourse article with regards to children in early 2017. He gives me the creeps.) [[Special:Contributions/86.158.154.78|86.158.154.78]] ([[User talk:86.158.154.78|talk]]) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
@NeilN: @Toddy1 The latest remark from the IP resembles [[Special:Diff/818243391|this gem of an edit summary]] from the ubiquitous [[WP:LTA/****]]. Agreed? [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 18:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:@Favonian: Yes, same style, same waste of time. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 18:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you! IP blocked. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
--- |
|||
{{talkquote|I have nothing to do with a user named "**** *** *** *****" in whose name I have been blocked.}} - SdrawkcaB99, 22:19, 16 January 2018 |
|||
The SPI report was filed by [[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|Jayron32]], the administrator who illegally activated an "LTA" report. Jayron 32 responded to an SPI report (12:02, 7 May 2019) by Aloha27, whom we have met, with a block at 13:46. Normally it takes months for these reports to be actioned. Could there be some link to reports on Risker and GorillaWarfare's talk pages between 9 and 15 April 2019 detailing misogynistic bullying by Jayron32? Similar reports have been filed in respect of Favonian, whom we have met. |
|||
--- |
|||
'''Follow-up: Administrator Abuse by Users [[User:Mandruss|Mandruss]] and [[User:NeilN|NeilN]]''' |
|||
Good morning Yamla. Recently you participated in what I think is called "cyberbullying", after I had tried to file a complaint against two administrators, see below. Unlike the other bullies, you at least gave a reason, namely "block evasion". May I ask you for the background to this claim? It is a sincere question, and the reason that I am asking is that I am trying to understand the mechanisms of Wikipedia, so that I can file a successful complaint against these two administrators without risk of further allegations and blocks. Many thanks in advance for your cooperation. [[Special:Contributions/86.158.154.106|86.158.154.106]] ([[User talk:86.158.154.106|talk]]) 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
1=Yesterday, on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Consensus]] page, I made a Request for Comment on my proposed new algorithm for editing Wikipedia pages. Essentially, I proposed the idea of including a majority voting element, which is often already applied in practice, but has not been formalised. To my astonishment, Users [[User:Mandruss|Mandruss]] and [[User:NeilN|NeilN]] ganged up on me with abusive language and blocked me. I request that I be unblocked immediately, and that those two Administrators be sanctioned for their behaviour. Otherwise I may refuse to participate in Wikipedia editing from now on. [[Special:Contributions/86.158.154.104|86.158.154.104]] ([[User talk:86.158.154.104#top|talk]]) 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) | decline = I see talk page access has already been revoked. Good. If you aren't willing to address your block evasion, you shouldn't expect to be unblocked. [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Please don't request an unblock on my behalf. I'm not blocked. As to the unblock request I did yesterday, I presume you mean the one at [[User talk:86.158.154.104]]. I declined the unblock request because your block notice said you were blocked for "[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks|Block evasion]]" but you did not address this in your unblock request. As you did not address the reason for your block, there were no grounds for me to consider lifting the block. Nothing else in your request was relevant, when considering lifting your block. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla#top|talk]]) 13:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the rapid response. So how do I (and you as an administrator/registered user) obtain information on the alleged block evasion? In other words, what precisely is the block about? [[Special:Contributions/86.158.154.106|86.158.154.106]] ([[User talk:86.158.154.106|talk]]) 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Ask the blocking administrator. Or look at [[WT:Consensus]] where you started a conversation and see how the blocking administrator closed the discussion. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::(edit-conflict) You'd have to ask the blocking admin. There's no information I have that you don't already have. I mean specifically, there's no sort of hidden blog log available only to admins, which has additional information. In your case, it's unclear if one of your other IP addresses was blocked, or if you previously used an account. You may know that, of course, but I don't. The one piece of information you may not know is that blocks apply to the person. What I mean is if you have an account and that account is blocked, you aren't permitted to edit through an IP address. Similarly, if one of your IP addresses is blocked, you aren't allowed to just change IP addresses and continue editing. Even though the block is ''placed'' on an account or an IP address, it ''applies'' to the person behind the account or IP address. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla#top|talk]]) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::In this specific case, you are believed to be the long-term vandal known as {{User|**** *** *** *****}}. See [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** *****]]. I take no position on this claim. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla#top|talk]]) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've blocked the latest IP. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
--- |
|||
'''Message for Yamla''' |
|||
Hi [[User talk:Yamla|Yamla]], I hope you will read this because NeilN has struck again, interrupting our dialogue on your Talk page. First of all, many thanks for the link pointing towards the long-term Vandal(X). So if I understand this correctly, [[User:NeilN|NeilN]] is evading Administrator Abuse charges by blocking the plaintiff (me), by the simple means of tagging my IP onto a random other blocked account holder. How do you suggest I bring this behaviour to the attention of senior Wikipedia administrators? [[Special:Contributions/86.158.154.106|86.158.154.106]] ([[User talk:86.158.154.106#top|talk]]) 14:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
|||
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. |
|||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|||
=== CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
* |
|||
=== CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === |
|||
{{anchor|1=CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> |
|||
* |
|||
== edit request == |
== edit request == |
Revision as of 08:58, 22 June 2019
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Motion: India-Pakistan
Request for ArbCom to comment publicly on Fram's ban
Not sure where to put this; it isn't a case request. I don't think, anyway. I'd appreciate a clerk moving it to where it should go if it doesn't go here, or telling me where to move it to.
I do not need to know why Fram was banned; possibly privacy-related info that is none of my business. But I do think ArbCom needs to find out what is going on, and publicly state whether or not they agree with Fram's recent 1 year WMF office action ban from en.wiki (and en.wiki only), talk page access removal, and desysop. If you guys say this is OK, I'll defer to that (tho I suspect others might not). But I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where a 1 year local ban should be an office action, rather than something that ArbCom deals with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: I'll send an email off to the clerks list and see if I can get some information from the arbs on where this should go for you. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Cameron11598, this is probably the best place. Floq, This has come from WMF, not Arbcom, so I'm not sure that we are the best people to answer you. Perhaps your first port of call should be one of the WMF community liaisons? WormTT(talk) 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: Previous observation tells me that they will tell me nothing, as I don't have standing. I will just be assured that the siteban was necessary to protect the community, or some such. Plus, about the only person in the whole WMF I actually trust implicitly is @Mdennis (WMF):, and I doubt she's in the loop with T&S blocks. ArbCom, on the other hand <suckup>I do trust</suckup>. My whole concern is that being sitebanned from en.wiki only has just got to be ArbCom's business, so I'm asking you guys to find out what's going on, and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. I gather from your response that, at the very least, you guys weren't given a heads up ahead of time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Worm, looks like I was right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Were you guys aware of anything relevant surrounding the locus? ∯WBGconverse 19:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: Previous observation tells me that they will tell me nothing, as I don't have standing. I will just be assured that the siteban was necessary to protect the community, or some such. Plus, about the only person in the whole WMF I actually trust implicitly is @Mdennis (WMF):, and I doubt she's in the loop with T&S blocks. ArbCom, on the other hand <suckup>I do trust</suckup>. My whole concern is that being sitebanned from en.wiki only has just got to be ArbCom's business, so I'm asking you guys to find out what's going on, and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. I gather from your response that, at the very least, you guys weren't given a heads up ahead of time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Cameron11598, this is probably the best place. Floq, This has come from WMF, not Arbcom, so I'm not sure that we are the best people to answer you. Perhaps your first port of call should be one of the WMF community liaisons? WormTT(talk) 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Guys, you have regular meetings with T&S - like Floquenbeam, I ask if you can give us a in-the-know "was reasonable/wasn't". If you weren't in-the-know, then could you both let us know that, and then put it on the next agenda? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Posting up here because I'm specifically answering the question about a heads-up from the WMF, and the thread meanders a bit. Arbcom found out this was implemented at the same time everyone else did. We did hear in advance that an action to do with Fram was under consideration - "we" in the person of me, because this was a regularly scheduled conference call and I happened to be the only arb available to participate - so I feel obliged to clarify my own understanding here, but I'm speaking for myself only. (The rest of the arbs did have the minutes from the meeting available shortly after.) The call was not specifically about this; it was pre-scheduled and this was one of several unrelated items. That information was not final and did not get into the specifics of their investigation. In past conversations - speaking in general, not about any individual, and IIRC around the time of the first project-specific ban on another wiki - I've expressed significant skepticism about the concept of a ban that is both WMF-originated and project-specific. But that is a general opinion on philosophical grounds, not based on the details of any specific instance. (I will say this - I get that it's frustrating to see an unexpected and dramatic action and not hear any explanation from whoever enacted it. But arbs are often on the other side of that fence and it's also frustrating to be unable to publicly articulate the basis for a decision. Not an argument for anything in particular, just sympathy for both sides of this awkwardly placed fence. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I've had some differences with Fram in the last couple of years - in fact I recall he came to my talk page just to tell me "fuck you", which if nothing else came in handy when I later wanted to defend someone else saying "fuck you" - but I obviously don't consider those differences banworthy.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think an ArbCom comment is needed here. Were you consulted or even informed about this ban? Are you aware of why WMF took direct action rather than referring the matter to you? Do you support the actions WMF have taken? No doubt there are other questions ArbCom could usefully address, and others will do doubt add to the list. This appears to many of us to be a case of WMF having usurped your role. I for one would be grateful for any comments/explanations you can provide. WJBscribe (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- And if, as I suspect, the answer to the above questions is "no" / "no" / "no comment", could we further request that you proactively contact the WMF and obtain a confidential summary of the reasons for the block? You could then, without revealing any further details, say whether you agree that it was justified or not. As ArbCom are subject to confidentiality agreements and inside the Chinese wall as far as privacy goes, it seems to me it would be reasonable for WMF to furnish them with such information if they requested it. They probably wouldn't play ball but it might be worth a shot, because it would go a long way to allaying community annoyance. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Add me to those saying this needs an Arbcom comment. From what little I can glean from the WMF's non-answer answer, this appears to be a case of the WMF unilaterally banning one of our longest-serving admins on the basis of an anonymous complaint. Had it been a permanent global ban I'd shrug and assume there was good reason this couldn't be discussed publicly, but since this is specific to a single wiki and time-limited, it looks a clear-cut case of the WMF unilaterally carrying out a hit on an editor against whom they've taken a dislike because they didn't trust the committee to come to their preferred conclusion when provided with the relevant evidence. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- If it were a grudgematch, then why wouldn't they ban the editors entirely? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Add me to those saying this needs an Arbcom comment. From what little I can glean from the WMF's non-answer answer, this appears to be a case of the WMF unilaterally banning one of our longest-serving admins on the basis of an anonymous complaint. Had it been a permanent global ban I'd shrug and assume there was good reason this couldn't be discussed publicly, but since this is specific to a single wiki and time-limited, it looks a clear-cut case of the WMF unilaterally carrying out a hit on an editor against whom they've taken a dislike because they didn't trust the committee to come to their preferred conclusion when provided with the relevant evidence. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was on the committee when the first office bans occurred. Unless things have changed, they would tell us absolutely nothing about why they were issued (even in cases wher ewe pretty much knew anyway, having forwarded the matter to them). Standard CYA behavior, almost certainly at the behest of legal counsel, so I doubt the committee can crack the code here either. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- They've already told us this ban was as a result of "a complaint from the community", but having gone through every post by Fram in the last couple of months I can see no complaint of any kind being made about him (other than a relatively minor scuffle here which certainly isn't ban-worthy). I can't see how this could be a legal issue, or the ban would be global and permanent; a non-appealable one year ban on a single project just doesn't cut it if there's a genuine legal concern. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply there was a legal concern witht he ban itself, but rather that counsel would've advised the WMF not to ever explicitly say why they banned anyone, which they never do. So unless Arbcom was where the complaint originated, they likely know no more about about it than the rest of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- This would be completely reasonable if Fram had been globally banned. But he hasn't been, only from enwiki, and only for a year. If I was a member of ArbCom I'd be asking to know why - if nothing else, for information in case I was involved in a future ArbCom case involving Fram when his ban expires. Since they apparently haven't been, this makes no sense. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you are right then, were I an Arbitrators, I would find my position untenable in such circumstances. The "non-answer answer" suggests that action was taken because this fell into the category of "cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too." It is hard to see how enwiki hasn't delegated responsibility for these issues to ArbCom insofar as they relate to user conduct. Therefore, WMF Trust & Safety appears to be saying that, in Fram's case, ArbCom was failing to uphold our rules or the Terms of Use. That would make life pretty impossible for any sitting Arbitrators. WJBscribe (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @WJBscribe: - I'd have to disagree, despite the dramatic statement it might make. They'd be in an impossible position if the people who gave them their authority lost trust in them. The WMF doesn't give ARBCOM authority. The Community does. I have not lost trust in them, and losing them would not help en-wiki. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply there was a legal concern witht he ban itself, but rather that counsel would've advised the WMF not to ever explicitly say why they banned anyone, which they never do. So unless Arbcom was where the complaint originated, they likely know no more about about it than the rest of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- They've already told us this ban was as a result of "a complaint from the community", but having gone through every post by Fram in the last couple of months I can see no complaint of any kind being made about him (other than a relatively minor scuffle here which certainly isn't ban-worthy). I can't see how this could be a legal issue, or the ban would be global and permanent; a non-appealable one year ban on a single project just doesn't cut it if there's a genuine legal concern. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- As for who was involved in this action, it looks like everyone in the office, including Legal, Maggie Denis and the ED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Am I misreading the stuff at that link, or does it indicate that there is no appeal available for WMF Office bans? I can't see how that can possibly be acceptable. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that's... disturbing. Am I the only one who finds it uncomfortable to think that the WMF can issue bans with no option for appealing them even to the WMF itself? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- There's always the Board of Directors, with longtime community representation there. They have override if necessary, and the Staff have to disclose to them anything they legally can. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that's... disturbing. Am I the only one who finds it uncomfortable to think that the WMF can issue bans with no option for appealing them even to the WMF itself? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Am I misreading the stuff at that link, or does it indicate that there is no appeal available for WMF Office bans? I can't see how that can possibly be acceptable. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The committee has been following this thread and the one at BN. We are discussing the matter. Mkdw talk 23:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- To add to Mkdw's comment, there is not a lot the Committee can say at the moment without discussing the matter first with the Foundation. However, I feel that I can say that this is not something the Committee asked the Foundation to do, and the Committee received the news regarding the ban at the same time as the community. I have written to the Foundation as an individual asking for the ban to undone, and for any concerns regarding Fram to be brought to ArbCom for the Committee to deal with appropriately. However, at this stage, I am unsure exactly what recent concerns the Foundation have regarding Fram that prompted them to ban him. And if they are local concerns, then either ArbCom should deal with the matter or the Foundation should decide that they will deal with local matters on en.wiki, and disband ArbCom and set up an appropriate interface between the community and the Foundation where matters like this can be openly discussed. There is no benefit to anyone in having secret bans. That merely creates a state of fear. SilkTork (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- SilkTork, I think I can imagine a situation in which law enforcement was involved, and it would not be appropriate to expect the usual dispute resolution processes to be followed, culminating in an arbcom case, but I believe the office has explicitly excluded legal considerations. If it is community related rather than legal, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with your conclusion as unsettling as that would be. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. For an organisation that champions freedom of expression, openness and diversity, to be meting out justice in a manner similar to a tinpot repressive dictatorship is bizarre and unbefitting of its aims. — Amakuru (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like I have fallen through the looking-glass on all this. Up is down, down is up. I would welcome someones in a position of trust here on EnWiki - the CUs or ArbCom or the Stewards or somesuch - that they be given access to the details of the case and let us know if they agree or not. This action means that any editor on Wikipedia can be banned in an extrajudicial fashion with no possible appeal...I didn't even know that was possible. And all of a sudden I feel like we are all on shaky ground... Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I shall be inactive on ArbCom until this matter is resolved one way or another. There is frustratingly little information at the moment, but hopefully the Foundation will soon be able to explain this action to everyone's satisfaction. SilkTork (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Add my voice to the call for arbcom to (a) be notified of the reasons and (b) communicate whether justified or not (happy not to know if the committee is satisfied one way or the other). I can't think of a reason for a 1-year ban restricted to en.wp based on my previous experience with the committee and office-bans etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is now a post at BN from Fram[1] (copied from Commons) that says what the ban was about. It is nuts, especially given that there was no attempt to refer the complaint to the enwiki arbcom before bringing down the office hammer. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- So (at least according to Fram), the reason for the ultimate block was this very unpleasant edit against ARBCOM. It is in fact, distinctly uncivil. There's no way ARBCOM is lying that they were unaware as a body, but if an individual Arb felt it was unpleasant enough to move for sanctions (which wouldn't have been unreasonable in my view, though I'm aware I have stricter Civil desires than others), then they could have asked ARBCOM to have a look, and just recused themselves. We also wouldn't have blocked for a year under our rules. So I don't think there's an understanding of WMF's actions there, then. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction over office actions. I know your request means well, Floquenbeam, but I think it elevates the Arbitration Committee to some form of "leadership" role that it is not intended to take. Moreover, any details that were shared with the Committee would be confidential, and I think any public comments, positive or negative, would substantially damage the relationship of the Arbitration Committee with the WMF to the point that the WMF would just stop sharing information with the Committee. That's a very suboptimal potential situation, since it prevents information-sharing on difficult cases where the appropriate action isn't obvious until all the information that rests with different bodies is consolidated. ~ Rob13Talk 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- It kind of seems like the WMF is already not sharing information with the Committee. The Committee are the high authority in the community for handling private information, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to be the first point of contact for Trust & Safety, and to empower the Committee to say they have received the information even if they can't comment on it further for reasons of privacy. At least then the rest of us can have confidence that office actions have eyes on them that aren't paid by the Foundation. It's basic accountability. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, the Foundation doesn't report to the Committee. The Committee is here to enforce the community's policies, especially with an eye toward situations with private information. The Foundation is responsible for (and, in some cases, legally required to) enforce the Terms of Use. For instance (and this is not specific to Fram's situation), harsh and repeated criticism of WMF staff in less-than-civil terms may not draw a community block or ban, particularly because the community has always been downright terrible at enforcing civility amongst long-term editors. It may very well draw a WMF ban, though, because they face serious legal liability issues if they allow their employees to be harassed on a website they host. They owe a duty of care to their employees. There are substantial areas of the Terms of Use that extend beyond what I would consider to be the Committee's or the community's purview, and in my experience, these are often the areas in which WMF bans are enacted. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with this, of course, is that if Fram is correct and he was banned for the "Fuck Arbcom" post, then unless there's something I'm not aware of no WMF employee was referenced in that post. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Black Kite beat me to it. As a secondary point, is that WMF employees are by their nature, Global. It wouldn't make any sense to only remove him out of en-wiki if this was the issue that got him banned. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Rob, you make a good point about the Foundation's duty to protect their employees. But as for accountability and communication, it's not a matter of a subordinate relationship, it's simply a manner of assurance that the appropriate processes are being followed, that nothing unseemly is going on out of the public view, that, say, some disgruntled T&S employee with an axe to grind isn't blocking admins they don't like while their boss is on vacation. It doesn't take much to empower Arbcom to say something like "we have received the report and concur that appropriate process was followed", which I'm sure would satisfy the vast majority of the editors outraged by this incident and the WMF's lack of response. If that's not the process, it should be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: If it's a matter of that, I'm happy to tell you that all WMF office actions taken against editors like this have to be approved by multiple departments, including several outside of Trust and Safety. Trust and Safety performs the investigation, but they don't have final say over the result. At a minimum, I know they need sign-offs from Executive and Legal. Literally no-one in Trust and Safety has the authority to unilaterally ban someone. Not even the head of T&S. ~ Rob13Talk 16:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good start, but I still can't think of a good reason why there can't be some point of contact with Arbcom (who are signatories to the WMF's NDA) to observe that the process was followed. Does anyone audit those processes? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Executive, Legal, the Board. The Board has community members on it, keep in mind, for just this sort of reason - to make sure nothing insane is going on. They're actually the people you should be talking to, in my opinion, not ArbCom. ~ Rob13Talk 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think you and I are coming from different definitions of "audit" but you make a good point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Executive, Legal, the Board. The Board has community members on it, keep in mind, for just this sort of reason - to make sure nothing insane is going on. They're actually the people you should be talking to, in my opinion, not ArbCom. ~ Rob13Talk 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is something in the manner of Star Chamber to adopting and using a ban policy that provides both for no appeal and no information on the complaint or adjudication process followed. Multiple participants is no guarantee of due process. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed; cf. the Law of 22 Prairial:
...there had been set up, by decree of the Convention, a Commission of Five, which...dispens[ed] with the usual formalities of counsel and witness
:) ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed; cf. the Law of 22 Prairial:
- That's a good start, but I still can't think of a good reason why there can't be some point of contact with Arbcom (who are signatories to the WMF's NDA) to observe that the process was followed. Does anyone audit those processes? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: If it's a matter of that, I'm happy to tell you that all WMF office actions taken against editors like this have to be approved by multiple departments, including several outside of Trust and Safety. Trust and Safety performs the investigation, but they don't have final say over the result. At a minimum, I know they need sign-offs from Executive and Legal. Literally no-one in Trust and Safety has the authority to unilaterally ban someone. Not even the head of T&S. ~ Rob13Talk 16:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Rob, you make a good point about the Foundation's duty to protect their employees. But as for accountability and communication, it's not a matter of a subordinate relationship, it's simply a manner of assurance that the appropriate processes are being followed, that nothing unseemly is going on out of the public view, that, say, some disgruntled T&S employee with an axe to grind isn't blocking admins they don't like while their boss is on vacation. It doesn't take much to empower Arbcom to say something like "we have received the report and concur that appropriate process was followed", which I'm sure would satisfy the vast majority of the editors outraged by this incident and the WMF's lack of response. If that's not the process, it should be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Black Kite beat me to it. As a secondary point, is that WMF employees are by their nature, Global. It wouldn't make any sense to only remove him out of en-wiki if this was the issue that got him banned. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with this, of course, is that if Fram is correct and he was banned for the "Fuck Arbcom" post, then unless there's something I'm not aware of no WMF employee was referenced in that post. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, the Foundation doesn't report to the Committee. The Committee is here to enforce the community's policies, especially with an eye toward situations with private information. The Foundation is responsible for (and, in some cases, legally required to) enforce the Terms of Use. For instance (and this is not specific to Fram's situation), harsh and repeated criticism of WMF staff in less-than-civil terms may not draw a community block or ban, particularly because the community has always been downright terrible at enforcing civility amongst long-term editors. It may very well draw a WMF ban, though, because they face serious legal liability issues if they allow their employees to be harassed on a website they host. They owe a duty of care to their employees. There are substantial areas of the Terms of Use that extend beyond what I would consider to be the Committee's or the community's purview, and in my experience, these are often the areas in which WMF bans are enacted. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- It kind of seems like the WMF is already not sharing information with the Committee. The Committee are the high authority in the community for handling private information, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to be the first point of contact for Trust & Safety, and to empower the Committee to say they have received the information even if they can't comment on it further for reasons of privacy. At least then the rest of us can have confidence that office actions have eyes on them that aren't paid by the Foundation. It's basic accountability. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking more of "auditing decisions". If you meant the processes in place themselves, the WMF reviews them regularly. In fact, the type of ban implemented was added as a possible office action not long ago after a review of their processes, which previously would not have allowed anything short of a global ban in response to such conduct. Not ideal, since ultimately, the goal with a contributor like Fram should be the setting of clear boundaries of appropriate behavior with the goal of them contributing productively without restrictions in the future. Especially not ideal because all global bans were previously indefinite with no appeal, so it would have been a truly infinite ban. I'm personally not a huge fan of project-specific WMF bans, though I understand why they want to try them. I am very thankful that they have investigated and added "time-limited" bans to their arsenal of tools, though. ~ Rob13Talk 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Given the statement from Fram I'm going to reverse myself here and join the ranks of those asking for arbcom to make a statement on this, in particular detailing if the committtee itself did in fact forward this matter to the office. If Fram's statement is accurate, this was a matter for arbcom and not the back office, and a precedent of punting things to them for unappealable bans in such situations is not acceptable. The contention that this was failure to enforce the TOU is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: I can confirm that, during my tenure on the Committee, the Committee did not make a report to the WMF about Fram. And there hasn't been enough time since I left for the WMF to fully investigate any report. They've said it takes about four weeks. I don't particularly understand why everyone is getting hung up on the one example that Fram was given about his recent misconduct, because I have a strong suspicion it isn't the full story. If someone reported Fram for something like harassment, they obviously wouldn't show him a diff of him harassing a particular person, since that basically tells him who reported him. I get that's the only diff you've seen, but at the same time, is "the WMF is run by tyrants" really more likely than "a recognized rude person engaged in lots of incivility and/or harassment after multiple warnings"? ~ Rob13Talk 17:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: There are a lot of things that are possible here. The thread at The Site That Cannot Be Named has some possibilities. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- What, have Fox News got hold of it already?! ;) ——SerialNumber54129 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, they're far more reliable than Fox :) Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- What, have Fox News got hold of it already?! ;) ——SerialNumber54129 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: There are a lot of things that are possible here. The thread at The Site That Cannot Be Named has some possibilities. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: I can confirm that, during my tenure on the Committee, the Committee did not make a report to the WMF about Fram. And there hasn't been enough time since I left for the WMF to fully investigate any report. They've said it takes about four weeks. I don't particularly understand why everyone is getting hung up on the one example that Fram was given about his recent misconduct, because I have a strong suspicion it isn't the full story. If someone reported Fram for something like harassment, they obviously wouldn't show him a diff of him harassing a particular person, since that basically tells him who reported him. I get that's the only diff you've seen, but at the same time, is "the WMF is run by tyrants" really more likely than "a recognized rude person engaged in lots of incivility and/or harassment after multiple warnings"? ~ Rob13Talk 17:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- "The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction over office actions." - Yes, but as the last venue of dispute resolution and the highest trusted authority on English Wikipedia, they can advocate for our interests in situations like this in a way that other editors can't (except for maybe the steward group). It is not their formal responsibility, but there is nobody else to do so. That is how stewards wound up with a similar responsibility during the superprotect fiasco. --Rschen7754 18:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. The appropriate community representative related to WMF actions is the community-appointed members of the WMF Board. Currently, from enwiki, that's Doc James. ~ Rob13Talk 18:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not every wiki has a member (and in the past enwiki hasn't been represented at all). And I specifically recall during superprotect many of the "community-appointed members" towing the WMF party line. --Rschen7754 18:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are you looking for a community member to have knowledge of the process here, or a community member to have knowledge of the process here while also agreeing with your view? The "towing the WMF party line" bit suggests to me the latter. If that's the case, why would you need to hear from ArbCom before bringing out the pitchforks? ~ Rob13Talk 19:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not every wiki has a member (and in the past enwiki hasn't been represented at all). And I specifically recall during superprotect many of the "community-appointed members" towing the WMF party line. --Rschen7754 18:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. The appropriate community representative related to WMF actions is the community-appointed members of the WMF Board. Currently, from enwiki, that's Doc James. ~ Rob13Talk 18:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is no time for important matters! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps towing the party line is like finding a different flavour of koolaid? Nosebagbear (talk)
- This has been sort of obviated by events, but FWIW, Beeblebrox - no, arbcom as a body did not forward this to the office. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Add me to those who would like ArbCom to find out what on Earth actually happened here. If the response is "This was justified, we would have done the same given the evidence, and we can't disclose beyond that", I would trust ArbCom on that. Not WMF. But it's still unclear why WMF, and not ArbCom, was handling this in the first instance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The latest statement actually answered that bit, they felt as Frams comment was directly against Arbcom, it would present a conflict of interest for Arbcom to rule on a case where they were the target. How nice of T&S. I mean, its a blatantly bullshit excuse designed to circumvent actually informing Arbcom about anything. Arbcom has had far harsher things said about it by any number of currently active editors. I dont think they would have any issues being impartial in a Fram vs <insert someone Fram has pissed off here> case. I mean, ask a Judge or Magistrate if they would recuse just because a defendent or claiment said mean things about them. See how they laugh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- There are two actually better rebuttals than "ARBCOM is used to it" (which is both true and an appalling state of affairs). The biggest is that the WMF itself has a COI towards Fram, the second is that Fram could have been asked if he wanted to waive any concerns he had. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The latest statement actually answered that bit, they felt as Frams comment was directly against Arbcom, it would present a conflict of interest for Arbcom to rule on a case where they were the target. How nice of T&S. I mean, its a blatantly bullshit excuse designed to circumvent actually informing Arbcom about anything. Arbcom has had far harsher things said about it by any number of currently active editors. I dont think they would have any issues being impartial in a Fram vs <insert someone Fram has pissed off here> case. I mean, ask a Judge or Magistrate if they would recuse just because a defendent or claiment said mean things about them. See how they laugh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Probably the only comment I’ll make on this topic and no endorsement of WMF intended, but Arbcom also had a conflict of interest in being able to consider any complaints about user behaviour e.g. the now infamous “Fuck Arbcom” post. Not to mention, as covered above, the potential inability of Arbcom to enforce anything due to backlash. This is why “elected" judges are a terrible idea. And, also as mentioned before here or the the same thread at the ‘crats board: WMF owns the show here. N.J.A. | talk 21:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate editors' being obnoxiously rude to ArbCom members, any more than I appreciate editors' being obnoxiously rude to anyone else. And some people should probably read, or reread, User:BU Rob13/AGF applies to everyone before engaging in offensive name-calling toward arbitrators (or the WMF office staff or anyone else). That being said, a certain amount of thick skin does come with the arbitrator role, and if the Committee were unable to function anytime a case involved someone who had called it various names, the caseload would decrease very fast. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Only admins can read it, because Rob deleted it yesterday. Enigmamsg 17:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Let's face it, the only thing that the WMF has been able to come up with so far is "being rude to someone", and there may well be a COI there as well (looks like it). If we disappeared everyone who was rude to everyone else, ever, we'd probably end up with NewYorkBrad and about ten other editors. Not that this would be a bad thing, but I think it wouldn't be enough to keep the site running. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I won't repeat the details here because I haven't verified them, but the relevant thread over at Wikipediocracy makes some very troubling assertions regarding this. If it's even half true this is even worse than it at first appeared. I'd like to be clear that I'm not in any way defending Fram's remarks but rather en.wp's rights to determine who is an admin, who is banned etc, free of the fear that a single user with a personal connection to a powerful behind-the-scenes person can have an admin desysopped and banned with no community input whatsoever. I sincerely hope the accusations being made over there are wrong, but if they aren't this was possibly the most unethical office action in the history of office actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. I can't verify them either, but if true, we are looking at serious malpractice, at the very least. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the suggestions made at Wikipediocracy, but I'd be very wary of assuming they are actually behind this current action. There are a few snippets in what has been officially said to make me mindful of at least one other (speculative but, I think, realistic) possibility, and I'd hate the wrong person/people to be blamed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I won't repeat the details here because I haven't verified them, but the relevant thread over at Wikipediocracy makes some very troubling assertions regarding this. If it's even half true this is even worse than it at first appeared. I'd like to be clear that I'm not in any way defending Fram's remarks but rather en.wp's rights to determine who is an admin, who is banned etc, free of the fear that a single user with a personal connection to a powerful behind-the-scenes person can have an admin desysopped and banned with no community input whatsoever. I sincerely hope the accusations being made over there are wrong, but if they aren't this was possibly the most unethical office action in the history of office actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Only in death: Just for clarity's sake, the WMF wasn't trying to circumvent informing arbcom. See my earlier post - we did have some advance information, though nothing firm, and we didn't have any knowledge of what specifically their investigation involved.
- On the subject of the various accusations in the air, I have no reason to think they are true and honestly, knowing what kind of strange theories get put forward about how arbcom is corrupt and so on, I think it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know how to feel about this because, on one hand, it is looking like, in my ignorant eyes, that WMF bypassed the proper procedure unjustifiably and it is looking like abuse of authority. But, on the other hand, it looks like the banned editor is not really a saint, in some occasions when I have called out, civilly, apparent misbehavior of admins, I have either been ignored, scorned, or even threatened with a block, and I have also faced rude behavior by some admins, so it is kind of looking like a case of "I can do this to you but they can't do this to me". Thinker78 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC) edited 05:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Committee mandate usurped
I've been away for a couple of days (many chipmunks petted), so I'm still playing catchup at WP:FRAM, but I am absolutely astonished that the Foundation has usurped the Arbitration Committee's mandate so heavy-handedly and with such little transparency. This does not inspire confidence, to say the least. I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to collectively issue a statement, one which represents and reflects community consensus. And I urge them to do so, if not immediately, at the very near future. I should note that Doc James, whom I have voted for, still enjoys my confidence, and I am hopeful that he, too, will do everything in his power to resolve this unprecedented crisis and community rift with the Foundation. Wow, what a trainwreck! El_C 05:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Somewhere in the mess of threads, Doc James says that the meeting to discuss this is on the 14th. I very much doubt you'll see anything other than placeholder statements from either the board or arbcom until then. Once that meeting has reported and the facts are on the table, that will be the time I'd expect a comment; Arbcom won't (and probably shouldn't) release a statement based on he-said-she-said partial information until the committee, the board and whichever office staff signed off on this have actually clarified what's actually going on here. ‑ Iridescent 08:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- We are losing valuable volunteers, so a statement even a very brief one in the interim could do much to mitigate that. El_C 14:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Committee Mandate NOT Usurped
We see arguments like this but it's just not true. The committee still has its mandate, and the WMF still has the TOU. They may sometimes/rarely overlap but it's not replacement that has happened, it is independent action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Overlap is a play on semantics. Unless we are all missing something pivotal (which I suppose is within the realm of possibility), this should have been handled by the Arbitration Committee, be it privately or publicly. El_C 21:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in the least semantics. Independent actors are independent actors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and the WMF should stay independent—over there. We don't come into the San Fran office and fire their employees; they don't come onto the project and ban our admins. There's your independence. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Admins are not our employees. Their system permissions, however, are by policy and common sense under the owner of the system, none of which means they are not also under the part the community plays. How many times has it been said that the reason we have RfA is because WMFLegal insists on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker, that claim is literally impossible. RfA was founded in June 2003.[2] The WMF did not have any legal staff until Brad Patrick as GC in 2006.[3] Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's still the case. Things change when you hire a lawyer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The arrow of time does not change when you hire a lawyer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, but things are given legal significance. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The arrow of time does not change when you hire a lawyer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's still the case. Things change when you hire a lawyer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker, that claim is literally impossible. RfA was founded in June 2003.[2] The WMF did not have any legal staff until Brad Patrick as GC in 2006.[3] Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Admins are not our employees. Their system permissions, however, are by policy and common sense under the owner of the system, none of which means they are not also under the part the community plays. How many times has it been said that the reason we have RfA is because WMFLegal insists on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and the WMF should stay independent—over there. We don't come into the San Fran office and fire their employees; they don't come onto the project and ban our admins. There's your independence. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in the least semantics. Independent actors are independent actors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Prior Arb Com Awareness
Just so everyone can find it here instead of trying to navigate WP:FRAM, GorillaWarfare has commented that a disciplinary action against Fram was discussed during a conference call which took place "last week," and the meeting minutes, which were then distributed to members of the ArbCom, documented that the T&S team recommended a 1 year ban. Maybe the Arbs who read the minutes may want to add something else. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, as I said here, I am astounded that ArbCom had that level of awareness and apparently said and did nothing. Simple question: why were the WMF disclosing this to you if they were not expecting some sort of response? Was it simply a "FYI", and if so, why did you not have an onwiki response ready when the storm broke as you all know how opaque such bans are and the likely response (maybe you presumed the WMF would handle it better?) - what was the point in the WMF telling you about this to the extent they did, if the end result was still what happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The WMF often tells ArbCom about incoming global bans that affect editors active on enwiki so that the Committee can engage in any useful information-sharing after the ban occurs. For instance, if ArbCom receives a report of harassment from a WMF banned editor through a sock, they then know they should probably share that information with the WMF. It helps consolidate information so the best decisions can be made. The WMF is not seeking ArbCom's opinion on these decisions, generally, though. Our relationship as it relates to T&S investigations is only one of information-sharing. ~ Rob13Talk 15:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- When I was on the arbitration committee, the relationship with the WMF (as far as it went at the time) was one where some thought was given to the appearance and presentation of decisions, and in some cases anticipating potential backlashes and storms (whether in a teacup or more serious). I know you are no longer on the committee, but is that aspect of things now largely neglected? Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I guess so, because we haven't been asked about how to present anything about anything. Katietalk 15:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds like the WMF are only notifying you of their global bans in advance to make you feel like you are being told something important. If you don't really have any input or need to know, then you should ask for 'FYI' matters like that to be notified to you after they are done. It will avoid the 'who knew what when' questions. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I guess so, because we haven't been asked about how to present anything about anything. Katietalk 15:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- When I was on the arbitration committee, the relationship with the WMF (as far as it went at the time) was one where some thought was given to the appearance and presentation of decisions, and in some cases anticipating potential backlashes and storms (whether in a teacup or more serious). I know you are no longer on the committee, but is that aspect of things now largely neglected? Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Whoops, this discussion has sort of split a bit. I responded over there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The WMF often tells ArbCom about incoming global bans that affect editors active on enwiki so that the Committee can engage in any useful information-sharing after the ban occurs. For instance, if ArbCom receives a report of harassment from a WMF banned editor through a sock, they then know they should probably share that information with the WMF. It helps consolidate information so the best decisions can be made. The WMF is not seeking ArbCom's opinion on these decisions, generally, though. Our relationship as it relates to T&S investigations is only one of information-sharing. ~ Rob13Talk 15:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Changes to Oversight team
Timings of T&S Meetings
On a partially related note,
Only one Arb was able to attend the T&S meeting. This is apparently down to it taking place at an immensely unhelpful time of day.
Was this the case? - surely these meetings could take place at, say, 2pm EST (7pm GMT), which while work-day obligations would have some hindrance for the US Arbs, would seem to allow a broader number? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- This has been a topic of consistent discussion, Nosebagbear. These meetings historically have rotated times so that every interested arb can attend some of the meetings. The goal has historically been to make sure every arb has an opportunity to attend once every other month or so, rather than maximizing the number of arbs at any one meeting. There are advantages and disadvantages to that, of course. Only one arb in attendance is the lowest I've ever heard of it being. Usually, even at those odd hours, we had 2-3 arbs. I was one of the arbs who could attend those late hours, so my resignation probably harmed that time slot a bit. If not for my resignation, I would have been in that meeting. Having only seven active arbs at that point in the month probably also didn't help.
In any event, this is basically just to let you know this is an active topic of conversation between ArbCom and the WMF, and it is being reviewed periodically. I think final decisions are waiting on some things that I can't go into, but it is definitely a legitimate question that is being investigated. ~ Rob13Talk 15:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My thanks for the explanation @BU Rob13:. Obviously there is something to be said for the rotating method for this purpose - but the timing seemed so odd, unless Opabinia (or you, if they hadn't been aware of your departure) couldn't have made another time. Perhaps if each Arb filled out blocks of time that they would generally be able to do, and the meetings rotated within the subset of hours that would cover everyone? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's actually exactly what we do at the beginning of each year! But work schedules change, people resign, one-time events come up that preclude making it to a meeting, etc. It's unfortunate this one meeting was so poorly-attended, and maybe the schedule needs re-calibration (we had talked about that at a recent meeting), but we do try to schedule these the proper way. ~ Rob13Talk 15:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My thanks for the explanation @BU Rob13:. Obviously there is something to be said for the rotating method for this purpose - but the timing seemed so odd, unless Opabinia (or you, if they hadn't been aware of your departure) couldn't have made another time. Perhaps if each Arb filled out blocks of time that they would generally be able to do, and the meetings rotated within the subset of hours that would cover everyone? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- What Rob said. We try to rotate the meeting times, since unfortunately with arbs in various timezones with various work schedules (and other commitments) it's hard to find a regular time that works for everyone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, what they said - we took a survey awhile back on preferred times and use a rotation, but changing schedules, arb inactivity, general life interruptions, etc. happen and attendance varies a lot. In fact changing the times was one of the topics discussed at this particular meeting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well then, remind me to shoot Murphy and his irritating brother Irony. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we handle harassment?
There is one thing out of this Fram-WMF shitstorm which might be worthwhile to discuss. There was a statement that T&S could not forward the case to ArbCom because ArbCom is not really equipped to handle with on-wiki harassment. Indeed, ArbCom requires multiple prior resolution attempts, which would be ANI. In my personal experience (I really tried and failed) proving harassment by an established user at ANI is close to impossible, since one needs to collect a large number of diffs (order of dozens), and it must be pretty obvious that harassment is taking place. Any complaint against an established user at ANI always causes a shitstorm, which actually adds to the feeling of being harassed. Before one goes to Arbcom, one needs to demonstrate several of these failed ANI threads, which makes the whole enterprise close to impossible. Is there anything on the Arbcom side we can do about it, such as closed proceedings similar to T&S? Let me make it clear that this topic is not about me - whereas I am seriously disappointed that the community did not help me when I needed help, I do not currently need help, and I am not going now to discuss issues I had in the past. This is a principal question. Feel free to move it to one of the noticeboards if you feel it does not belong here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, Well, I'm certain the answer is it depends on the case, sometimes good at handling it, sometimes not (which actually is the very thing the WMF office policy suggests would happen (sometimes not good)), it's also bound to be the only possible truth - nothing and no-one is perfect all the time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The closed proceedings already exist:
ArbCom requires multiple prior resolution attempts, which would be ANI
isn't really true for harassment cases. It's true for theserious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve
part of WP:ARBPOL, but harassment would fall undermatters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons
and be heard in private, provided one could convince them that it was necessary. The issue is more a reluctance on the part of editors to take things to Arbcom, and a reluctance on the part of the committee to take on interpersonal disputes. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)- We are specifically talking about on-wiki, not off-wiki harassment. I am sure an arb or a former arb today said ArbCom would not handle a closed case with exclusively on-wiki evidence (do not remember who that was).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- You may be thinking of BU Rob13's comments at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Bishonen_unblocked_Fram_(+_reactions), which is very relevant here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Rob is probably right—we tend to handle on-wiki issues in on-wiki cases, even when there are (in my opinion) good reasons not to. We are also, in my opinion, not great at handling harassment cases and situations involving long-term disruption by established editors ("unblockables"). When we have in the past placed bans on established contributors based on private evidence, they've gone over pretty poorly: with similar "star chamber" accusations and claims that despite not having seen the evidence, the block can't possibly be warranted. I have to say I'm a little surprised at the number of people who have said that if it had been the ArbCom who had placed this block and not the WMF, all would've been fine and dandy—I suspect that is not how it would have shaken out at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is though GW, ArbCom has more transparency in that at least we know who made the decision to sanction someone (and we know they are part of the community here, and are aware of community norms). With WMF, we have no idea - we have the names of WMF functionaries (most of whom don't contribute to enwiki and probably know little about it), but are clueless about who actually made these decisions, something that is of course made worse by the communications being sent to us by the equally faceless WMFOffice account. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- If what Rob said on his talk page is close to being accurate, which does line up with what's being said here and kind of lines up with personal experience with the Commitee, then Arbcom is not just "not great at handling harassment cases", they're set up to do everything wrong. The way I understand the process having been explained by Rob (and Drmies, tangentially), Arbcom currently requires the victim to self-identify, and to be exposed to further harassment from their attacker, and new harassment from the community. We need to have a mechanism for anonymizing complaints of harassment, while giving the accused an opportunity to respond. Rob had some good points on this. If we don't, then victims will be 100% justified in skipping local processes and complaining to the Foundation directly, and we've all seen by now how they handle these things. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's probably something to put up for discussion. Currently, the general rule is that cases may not be handled privately unless they require the review of private, off-wiki evidence. Cases focusing entirely on on-wiki conduct are generally expected to be handled on-wiki. There might be other cases in which that should be different, but I don't want to go too far in the other direction either—the community has generally held that transparency in processes, especially disciplinary processes, is a desirable default, and that exceptions to that should happen rarely and only for good cause. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that a search for "star chamber" finds that a quarter (10/41) of the archive pages include accusations of ArbCom acting like a star chamber, certainly would seem to make GorillaWarfare's point for her.
- I mean, I can already hear the cries of "ArbCom is suppressing criticism of themselves", "how dare they not reveal the evidence" etc had ArbCom sanctioned Fram. Many of the exact same accussation as that is being levied at the WMF office, would be levied towards ArbCom. It is not like ArbCom is super-duper popular - only in comparison to the foundation they can be said so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, most issues involving only on-wiki conduct ought to be "tried" on-wiki. Legitimate claims of harassment need to be an exception to that. Otherwise, instead of reporting, people will just go away, and then "harassing opponents off Wikipedia" becomes a silently accepted practice for "winning" content disputes. That's already occurring, and it's unacceptable. Rob said that he had been working on an OTRS queue specifically for this (I don't have OTRS access and don't know how it works), that's a step in the right direction. Editors ought to feel comfortable reporting harassment knowing we'll keep their identity safe while we investigate. We (by "we" I mean whoever ends up charged with this) will get a lot of false positives but we can quickly discard them, just respond with something like "someone deleting your article is not harassment, here is where you should follow up" or "someone saying 'fuck' in an unrelated conversation is not harassing you personally, you can post at WP:ANI to review the situation". Just put it back to the community when it's not genuinely a harassment situation. And no, the community should not review legitimate harassment claims, we're not capable.
- Also, to a point Rob tried to make many times right up to on his way out the door, we need to be better at enforcing the civility policy evenly at all levels. That's probably not entirely related to harassment but it should be said. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- If what Rob said on his talk page is close to being accurate, which does line up with what's being said here and kind of lines up with personal experience with the Commitee, then Arbcom is not just "not great at handling harassment cases", they're set up to do everything wrong. The way I understand the process having been explained by Rob (and Drmies, tangentially), Arbcom currently requires the victim to self-identify, and to be exposed to further harassment from their attacker, and new harassment from the community. We need to have a mechanism for anonymizing complaints of harassment, while giving the accused an opportunity to respond. Rob had some good points on this. If we don't, then victims will be 100% justified in skipping local processes and complaining to the Foundation directly, and we've all seen by now how they handle these things. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is though GW, ArbCom has more transparency in that at least we know who made the decision to sanction someone (and we know they are part of the community here, and are aware of community norms). With WMF, we have no idea - we have the names of WMF functionaries (most of whom don't contribute to enwiki and probably know little about it), but are clueless about who actually made these decisions, something that is of course made worse by the communications being sent to us by the equally faceless WMFOffice account. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- You may be thinking of BU Rob13's comments at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Bishonen_unblocked_Fram_(+_reactions), which is very relevant here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, Rob made a good point about the star chamber thing too, though he was obviously speaking from a position of (justifiable) frustration. Some things need to be handled privately, that's all there is to it. If Arbcom won't do it, then it gets punted to the WMF, and they're a faceless entity that does whatever they feel like and views the community as disposable free labour. Better Arbcom, who we elect to do this thing and can unelect if we're unhappy with them, and are a committee of community members with many voices working together which is actually accountable to community process and review, than an ambiguous group at the WMF who ignore our policies and have no accountability at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Was just going to link to Rob's very relevant comments at User_talk:BU_Rob13#Sorry_to_see_you_go. but EC'd. I certainly would prefere ArbCom over the WMF doing it, but perhaps precisely because ArbCom is elected by the community also means the the "loud rude group" can have an influence of decision making (though the fact that the elections are widely advertized does help a lot with that). Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- And vocal complaining from that group is going to influence ArbCom decisions because of its responsibility to listen to the "community" - meaning the people who comment on decisions, even if all their concerns are nonsense - even if ArbCom recognizes that, their going to be reluctant to make the next unpopular decision etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The only real defense I can propose for that is for more of us to be vocally supportive of the Committee doing the right thing in this area. Which prevents nobody from being constructively critical when they fail, keeping in mind the civility policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- We are specifically talking about on-wiki, not off-wiki harassment. I am sure an arb or a former arb today said ArbCom would not handle a closed case with exclusively on-wiki evidence (do not remember who that was).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- +1 (ok more than one) to Ymblanter's question/observation. Worth noting that the Community Health strategy working group is probably asking similar broad question about how well harassment is handled across all different projects. The Land (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- And just to emphasize, these are the lines of defense against harassment, and as one can see they can fail or succeed all along the way: 1) the editor being harassed, having the wherewithal to defend themselves; 2) other Users (also known a bystanders); 3) Administrators 4) Arbcom; 5) WMF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is very clear to anyone who is not currently in Deep Anger mode that no, the community here - Arbcom or otherwise - cannot handle harassment in any reasonable way. The simple fact that folk jumped to immediately assuming bad faith on the part of the WMF - who must serve as the victim's proxy and advocate - is testament to that. Attacking Raystorm and her personal life (thus assuming bad faith about the board chair, which then assumes bad faith with trust and safety, and the executive director, and a large handful of employees) cements that position further. The "community" here nearly always blames the victim. Nearly always. --Jorm (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- On a related issue: it's come up in this committee before, and you see the argument sometimes elsewhere, 'Let WMF enforce the TOU (i'm/we're not going to)', and 'Let WMF handle it", whatever 'it' is. So, there you go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've made a few comments on FRAM about this already, but I think that ArbCom (and other community processes) do a poor job of dealing with harassment and user behaviour issues more broadly construed. The public, all-sides-should-be-scrutinized approach done by amateur self-appointed ANI/case participants does not work for addressing long-term problematic behaviour. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- True, but bad behaviour in general is something that the set-up of Arbcom is well equipped to handle, when it doesn't involve sensitive charges like harassment. "Issues that the community is unable to resolve" is a large part of their mandate, and every Committee since I've been around here has actually been reasonably effective at it. But the "airing all evidence in public" method does not work for harassment. It's insensitive and kind of awful. I think there are some members of the current Committee who get that, and some that don't. That's unfortunate, but speaks to Rob's points about electing better arbitrators. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Even when there are no sensitive elements, I've observed that it's difficult for the Committee to take action against long-term misbehaviour that doesn't reach a particular threshold. There's also the harassment / negative remarks that are inevitably directed at the filing party whenever an unblockable (or really anyone) is taken to ArbCom. I've never had reason to file a case myself, but if I were in that position I doubt I'd be comfortable with it given the likely reaction. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think a major part of that is that, as a community, we don't really have a well-defined border of diligence and harassment, nor of civility and rudeness. We have bright-line "this is unambiguously harassment/rudeness" (WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, contacting an editor's employers) but outside of those "harassment" and "incivility" are virtually undefined. Ask 10 people, and nine of them will give you a unique answer (with the 10th being paranoid and cutting off all contact). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- That may be a reason why we are so bad at dealing with it, but it isn't a solution. If the community is unable to set a standard, maybe this is a place for ArbCom to step in. There doesn't need to be an official bright-line policy on this, there just needs to be enforcement. I maintain that if actions start being taken against some of the key actors, others will start to get the hint that their behaviour isn't acceptable. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- ArbCom has attempted to take action on civility in multiple cases in the past. So far that hint you speak of hasn't been taken, and ensuing uproar about the ArbCom decision(s) has, in my opinion, only made things worse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that the lack of a standard on civility may be in part a side effect of the "flat" nature of the wiki. People have pointed out that our standard of civility ("who among us hasn't told ArbCom to GFY?") is pretty appalling in comparison to a professional workplace, volunteer environment, etc. And indeed, few of us would stand up in a department meeting to declare that "The project is late because Tom here is a fucking meathead who can't follow directions." On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine Bob, Carol, and Janice, professionals, sitting down in their cubicle at work, discussing amongst themselves "how to keep that dickhead Tom from fucking up the reporting system more than he already has". Because en.wikipedia has generally encouraged editors to keep their communications on-wiki, we've compressed all of these social situations into a single open space, where the social standard is considerably lower than in a formal professional setting but perhaps somewhat higher than among a few editors bellyaching about a mutually-detested acquaintance. (The latter is hard to believe, but those who remember the ancient festival of "leaking of wikipedia-en-admins IRC logs" will do so, and appreciate why we've chosen this particular approach.) I hope there's room for improvement in the current system, but I'm doubtful that we can in fact get everyone to adopt "company manners" all the time without some sort of compensatory mechanism for people's need to vent among the like-minded. Choess (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- A place to start would be to make a distinction between userspace and article space, so that the former is more akin to the workmate cubicle where it's more acceptable to vent, and the latter is more akin to the department meeting where professional conduct is expected at all times. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @PaleCloudedWhite: - that's an interesting thought. The tough one would be Wikipedia space, where there both internal and external discussions, and is where harassment from long-term users is most likely to occur. One notable issue is that most professional environs don't have (so many) individuals who distinctly not there to contribute, so an analogous expected behaviour has issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would consider Wikipedia space to be more like article space, though that's my personal view. If people were interested in this as a practical concept, I don't see why more specific parameters couldn't be established through discussion and usage. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @PaleCloudedWhite: - that's an interesting thought. The tough one would be Wikipedia space, where there both internal and external discussions, and is where harassment from long-term users is most likely to occur. One notable issue is that most professional environs don't have (so many) individuals who distinctly not there to contribute, so an analogous expected behaviour has issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- A place to start would be to make a distinction between userspace and article space, so that the former is more akin to the workmate cubicle where it's more acceptable to vent, and the latter is more akin to the department meeting where professional conduct is expected at all times. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- That may be a reason why we are so bad at dealing with it, but it isn't a solution. If the community is unable to set a standard, maybe this is a place for ArbCom to step in. There doesn't need to be an official bright-line policy on this, there just needs to be enforcement. I maintain that if actions start being taken against some of the key actors, others will start to get the hint that their behaviour isn't acceptable. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think a major part of that is that, as a community, we don't really have a well-defined border of diligence and harassment, nor of civility and rudeness. We have bright-line "this is unambiguously harassment/rudeness" (WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, contacting an editor's employers) but outside of those "harassment" and "incivility" are virtually undefined. Ask 10 people, and nine of them will give you a unique answer (with the 10th being paranoid and cutting off all contact). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Even when there are no sensitive elements, I've observed that it's difficult for the Committee to take action against long-term misbehaviour that doesn't reach a particular threshold. There's also the harassment / negative remarks that are inevitably directed at the filing party whenever an unblockable (or really anyone) is taken to ArbCom. I've never had reason to file a case myself, but if I were in that position I doubt I'd be comfortable with it given the likely reaction. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- True, but bad behaviour in general is something that the set-up of Arbcom is well equipped to handle, when it doesn't involve sensitive charges like harassment. "Issues that the community is unable to resolve" is a large part of their mandate, and every Committee since I've been around here has actually been reasonably effective at it. But the "airing all evidence in public" method does not work for harassment. It's insensitive and kind of awful. I think there are some members of the current Committee who get that, and some that don't. That's unfortunate, but speaks to Rob's points about electing better arbitrators. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- So when they say they don't think ArbCom can handle harassment, do they mean there's any technical defect or only that ArbCom somewhat listens to a community that doesn't want people to get long-term blocks over a few stray emotions? I mean, Fram's cited diff might have been a little vicious [and I doubt it got ArbCom's sympathy!] -- but it is not "harassment" in any sense of the term I know of. Wnt (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
We need to have a mechanism for anonymizing complaints of harassment, while giving the accused an opportunity to respond.
I don't see how these two concepts can coexist in practice unless one is also prepared to do away with the notion that someone accused of a certain behavior is provided with the ability to face and challenge their accuser, which would (rightfully) be found repugnant by the community. An ugly truth of western society is that formally accusing someone involves risk (which is admittedly and recognizably why it is frightening and why many avoid it), and I find it inarguable that Wikipedia could do a monumentally better job of enforcing protections against reporters; it must be seen as a balance (whether one agrees with it or not) between fairness for the accuser and fairness for the accused. I think allowing for anonymous reporting, and expecting people accused of such behavior to be able to realistically defend themselves without knowing exactly what actions they must explain and/or justify, is inherently doomed to failure. Safeguards for those doing the reporting are needed, but complete anonymity tips the balance of fairness in, well, an unfair way. Grandpallama (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's not that much of a paradox, though, really, but maybe my comment that you quoted is a bit idealistic. In a court of law in the west, yes, it's common principle that the accused may face their accuser, no matter that it revictimizes them. It's an essential component of justice. Wikipedia is not a court of law, it's a website. The WMF doesn't owe anyone justice, they owe users compliance with the Terms of Use, and if someone violates the terms of use the WMF owes them the door. What we're going to have to do is follow the lead of huge web entities like Facebook and
Twitterand Reddit, and numerous others, and develop an anonymous reporting mechanism, with a community entity (likely Arbcom) that can review evidence privately, make a determination privately if a user has violated our policies, and act if necessary, subject to normal community block and appeal processes. That's already better in terms of granting rights to the accused because we have appeal mechanisms. When Facebook bans someone, they aren't told which specific posts they made that led to the action, that would make the reporter a target and nobody would report. They're told "you posted something that violated our terms of use, and we've removed it." Or, "you have been doing things that violate our community standards, you are no longer permitted to use this website." And there's no appeal, the operators of the website just act, end of story. Yeah, it's not very transparent, but some things cannot be transparent, that's the reality in 2019. If we don't have that kind of mechanism, then people who are victims of harassment will just never come back, which means we keep the offenders around to drive even more people off. And, if we don't have that kind of mechanism, then Trust & Safety has stated they're going to do it for us, with even less transparency, and that's what (apparently) they've done here. And I say good on them for taking the initiative. We've had the WMF gently pushing us for several years to strengthen our civility and harassment policies, we've consistently resisted for no good reason, and now they're taking over because they think we're not capable. And frankly they're right. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)- @Ivanvector:You make good points, and I'm not arguing with you on substance so much as pointing out a serious problem in the tension between recognizing that people who are victims need to be protected, and that those who are accused need an opportunity to make an actual defense. We do have the TOS, but Facebook and Reddit (and other social media sites) are a poor analogy, because those sites don't serve a greater purpose as Wikipedia (supposedly) does. They also host content, but they aren't a community of content creators that (again, supposedly) enjoy self-governance. Editing on Wikipedia and being accused of inappropriate behavior isn't the same as a trial, and yet the notion that people should have at least the opportunity to refute specific claims is pretty deeply engrained in our (both WP and western overall) culture. The fact that we have dispute resolution at all sets us apart from those other internet locales, and while we don't necessarily need a literal chance to challenge an accuser, there needs to be an opportunity to challenge accusations (wherein the tension lies, since those will reveal the accuser). And the way we know this is because we do have those dispute resolution boards, where for every real problem of civility and/or harassment that has gone inadequately dealt with, there are also people who howl about mistreatment/harassment/incivility in ways that makes us collectively roll our eyes. I don't agree with all of the hyperbole at the other page, but I do think a point has been repeatedly made that if we abdicate this aspect of our self-governance, we will not only never reclaim it, but will see increased slips in self-governance. Maintaining a world in which accused users have an opportunity to refute accusations (and appeal decisions, for god's sake!) is in line with the ideals and foundation of community that are (final supposedly) the bedrock of how Wikipedia works. Grandpallama (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
So normally as a total newbie I wouldn't add anything to a discussion like this (to anyone suspicious of how I found this page in the first place, I've been trying to get the lay of the land, and I figure trawling noticeboards etc. is a good supplement to reading explicit policies/guidelines--also, this stuff isn't so hard to find as all that!), but since at least one of the effects people are worried about here is the loss of potential new editors, I thought maybe a newbie perspective could be helpful. The thing that's given me the most trepidation about getting too involved here isn't so much the threat of obvious harassment, but the kind of low-level assholishness/aggressiveness that seems to just be an accepted part of the culture. I recognize that some genuinely well-meaning people here see it as a necessary trade-off for freedom, and I think of myself as someone who's good about moving on without feeling the need to engage, but frankly it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have not been around here long, but over the past few weeks I've gone through archives to get a feel for how the community handles things, and one pattern I've noticed is that obvious, really uncalled for, and extensive harassment is generally handled eventually, but that more sporadic, subjective rudeness isn't even seen as a potential problem by a lot of people. That disagreement is inherent to anything subjective, but as someone who's new here but has spent a lot of time on the internet for almost 20 years and is familiar with how things work on other big sites (and in the mind of most non-editing readers, Wikipedia is on par with Twitter, Facebook, Google) the fact that "how much does civility even matter" is still being discussed here to some extent is frankly jarring (it's not on this page, but I've seen it). I hope this isn't read as interloping, or me trying to make sweeping statements about a community I'm not really part of at this point, I just want to try and provide the perspective of someone who's just gotten here, since it's usually unavoidably hard to get that perspective in these conversations even though more-established people do seem to think it's relevant. Zojomars (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are not interloping. Thank you for your perspective. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- An antipathy towards non-collaborative behaviour isn't limited to newcomers. I appreciate many will say I should have a higher level of tolerance, but in the end, life's too short for me to try to keep engaging with editors who denigrate me personally. If it's not a matter about which I feel strongly about expressing a view, I will avoid engagement with such editors. As I've written about before, Wikipedia's discussion environment selects for less collegial editors over more collegial ones. isaacl (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you GorillaWarfare :-) . I want to just add a link to this write-up I found a couple weeks back, which I think summarizes some of these issues pretty well (not perfectly, but reasonably): [4]. I remember two points in there standing out to me--the note about them using 'fucking idiot' as a search term for examples, and the additional note on the example of conduct issues not being reported that explained that the user was eventually indeffed 2 years later. I'm very interested in how useful/accurate others find it. zojomars (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- And one of the outcomes of course could be that it is not possible to modify existing processes to handle on-line harassment efficiently. In which case we will have to agree that T&S must handle it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
A perspective on ArbCom's ability to handle sensitive matters discreetly
I'm surprised to see BU Rob13 say that the current ArbCom can't handle sensitive issues of civility without exposing the victim: "In order to avail yourself of ArbCom as a remedy, you must first go to ANI and see no resolution. This means that victims must throw themselves into the lion's den of ANI", etc, etc.. That has not been my experience at all. Once, not that long ago, I asked for a ban of somebody I considered was harassing me under very sensitive circumstances, and did it by e-mail to the committee. They took it in confidence and dealt with it in confidence (of course inviting responses by e-mail from the person I was accusing). They can do that. The only problem is that when the committee sanctions someone without letting the community in on the reasons, as happened in that case, editors, both well-meaning and otherwise, will be outraged at the lack of transparency (sigh). But the committee stood firm, which I'm very grateful for. They took a lot of flak for me, for their principles, and for a third party, who would have been seriously exposed if discretion had failed. ArbCom apparently can't win in doing this; they'll come in for a lot of unfair attacks when they deal with privacy-sensitive matters discreetly; but, as I found, they can certainly do it, or they could then. Has that really changed, Rob? I'm being purposely vague about time and occasion here, as I don't want to point a finger to somebody who can't reply, and I ask people not to offer suggestions or guesses. But I can share the details by e-mail if you like, Rob. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC).
- I can't respond to that exact instance on-wiki due to confidentiality, Bishonen, but there were fundamentally private aspects to that issue. Ironically, ArbCom is more equipped to handle harassment with private information than without private information. ~ Rob13Talk 19:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am extremely familiar with the situation you're talking about, just to be clear. Again, having to be vague because of confidentiality. ~ Rob13Talk 19:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- This critically important conversation is happening in many places. Besides here, the two that I know of are User talk:BU Rob13 and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, and besides what might be going on at WP:FRAMBAN. Can we centralize? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I opened the Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard one, which is considerably longer that this one at the moment. I suggest to move everything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What about an RfC? Not a "support/oppose" ratification of anything in particular, but just a way to gauge sentiment on it and get some ideas. What direction we'd want to go as far as policy changes could come out of that. If something positive can come out of this mess, I'm all for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure an RFC is the right way to go, at least not just yet. Everyone's angry and bad cases make bad policy. I would like to see Arbcom issue a statement, maybe addressing the current situation, but generally clarifying how they handle (or intend to handle from now on) private reports of harassment. And if that needs improvement, then we go from there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- This critically important conversation is happening in many places. Besides here, the two that I know of are User talk:BU Rob13 and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, and besides what might be going on at WP:FRAMBAN. Can we centralize? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am extremely familiar with the situation you're talking about, just to be clear. Again, having to be vague because of confidentiality. ~ Rob13Talk 19:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Since my post has been moved to this page, I'll just endorse what GorillaWarfare says above: "I have to say I'm a little surprised at the number of people who have said that if it had been the ArbCom who had placed this block and not the WMF, all would've been fine and dandy—I suspect that is not how it would have shaken out at all."
[5] Hell no, the experience I describe above has made me completely cynical about the likelihood of that. It was pretty shocking to see so many people, including some I had previously thought highly of, ready to jump on the bandwagon and insist ArbCom was a pack of wolves and a pit of snakes for not publicly revealing all the private circumstances. It's a problem, certainly. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, an arbcom block would have had far less escalation. For instance, I don't think there would have been an attempt to ban the entire Arbitration Committee if it had blocked Fram. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so sure. My experience from my time on the Committee exactly matches Bishonen's and GorrilaWarfare's. I've been an admin for 14 years, in all that time I don't recall a single instance of the community responding to an unpopular decision taken based on private information in any way other than with assumptions it must be wrong and assumptions of bad faith of those involved in making it (whoever made it), and it seems to get worse on every occasion, with some users seemingly getting more and more emboldened by the lack of anybody doing anything to rein in the worst offenders. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fram is/was too loud and too anti-this ArbCom for such an action to have passed with general acceptance - though there would have been many who would have defended ArbCom. I wish I could link to a really good (now deleted) essay about how good faith stops applying to certain editors. The more power a group/editor has the less good faith is shown them. This is discredit to us as a community. Despite that I still suggest there is a difference in kind in the uproar that would have occurred in that alternate universe (which would have happened and would have been substantial) and this, where the number and volume of defenders is less. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Quite a lot of the community outrage is "the WMF should not have the power to impose local bans". On the contrary, everyone agrees that the Arbitration Comittee has and deserves the power to impose bans that are appealable only to it. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, the reason we have ArbCom is that you have to have someone to look at private issues. The wiki model is a model for radical transparency, and we have been successful in applying it almost everywhere across the site but there are times when another solution is needed. For example, it just wouldn't work if a country decided to go full democracy and vote on every single decision, including ones that require knowledge of its military secrets; instead we have a president and a legislature. The question of whether to elect judges or appoint them for life (i.e. the executive chooses and the legislature confirms, while the legislature can impeach and remove judges as well) in real-life politics is an interesting one, but seeing as the executive and legislative functions on Wikipedia are completely decentralized there are no accountable people capable of appointing judges, hence the only option is to elect them if there is to be any sense of accountability. Much better than being a vassal state of some foreign country rich in resources to be exploited.
- The difference between ArbCom and WMF is that we can throw out ArbCom members next election who are not doing their jobs taking into account the best interests of the community. This does of course make them think twice about making unpopular decisions, but keeping them on their toes about reelection is not necessarily a bad thing. Most of the community has proven themselves quite willing to listen when ArbCom is willing to engage, i.e. it's not about the decision but the process and attitude of the decision-makers. The kind of non-answer answers that WMFOffice gave is how you really piss people off. If you give a good summary of the basic facts of a case people will accept it. These Audit Subcommittee reports show that ArbCom is capable of disclosing potentially sensitive info in a responsible, concise, and informative manner. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree strongly with all of the above. If we expect WMF to butt out, at some point we will have to trust ArbCom to make hard choices, even when they can't give us all the evidence. If ArbCom has really failed in the eyes of the community, we need to invest in discussions about how to improve it. We also need to understand (collectively) that even if we don't love ArbCom, we may like the alternatives even less. —Rutebega (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so sure. My experience from my time on the Committee exactly matches Bishonen's and GorrilaWarfare's. I've been an admin for 14 years, in all that time I don't recall a single instance of the community responding to an unpopular decision taken based on private information in any way other than with assumptions it must be wrong and assumptions of bad faith of those involved in making it (whoever made it), and it seems to get worse on every occasion, with some users seemingly getting more and more emboldened by the lack of anybody doing anything to rein in the worst offenders. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think BURob13 is misinterpreting his experience at arb com . As I saw it during my 4 years at arb com we have received confidential requests to take action. We've never asked them to goto ANI first. (though of course I do not know what may have happenned in the last 6 months after my term ended) The occasional privacy limitation on dealing with such requests is that there is sometimes no way of taking action without making obvious the identity of the person making the complaint. In such cases we've asked the person whether or not we should go ahead. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- DGG, I'm very happy to see DGG weighing in here. The post by BU Rob13 was a paradigm shift for me. As an active OTRS agent, I have fielded many complaints in which I have urged them to review and follow the dispute resolution guideline. Perhaps I'm reading it too casually, but my distinct impression has been that matters should not be turned into an Arbcom case, until other venues including ANI have been attempted. I am very sympathetic to the plight of a harassed editor who finds that offputting. I don't want to diminish Bishonen's experience, but Bishonen has a name recognition that means their experience may not be typical.
- I do see that the dispute resolution policy has an explicit section about how to deal with sensitive issues. Perhaps it needs more emphasis because if you had said 10 minutes ago that one must attempt to discuss the issue with the other party, and go to ANI before going to ARBCOM I would've nodded in approval. I see that isn't the case, but it still seems plausible to me that a harassed party might not be fully aware of the opportunity to bring an issue to ARBCOM in private.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've emailed ArbCom on two occasions about "reputable Wikipedians" who have been shit-talking me off-site: on one occasion they replied and said they would do nothing because the shit-talking was relatively minor and possibly a "good-faith misremembering", and in the other I don't seem to recall ever getting a response. In the former case it wound up being moot because the editor in question was indeffed for on-wiki hounding of me about a month later, but in the latter the editor in question is still going around happily showing up when he sees me at ANI or wherever, and continuously undermining me. I wouldn't mind that they weren't willing to act on someone hounding me on- and off-wiki, except that when I asked them last November to publicly acknowledge that the reason the editor had been shit-talking me (the fact that at that time I was subject to two IBANs and had a third on the way) was completely invalid because I had requested those IBANs to protect me from one-way hounding, and/or to lift one of those IBANs that I had requested because it hadn't lived up to its intended purpose and was having the inverse effect of making me a target of harassment, the one Arbitrator who responded engaged in some pretty gross historical revisionism by saying "My predecessors IBANned you because your conflict was disruptive, not because of hounding"[6] and essentially said "You're not the target of harassment -- stop whining"[7]. I e-mailed that Arb and CCed the rest of the Committee explaining my situation (that every few months some editor starts harassing me about having an IBAN -- and it happened again a little under two weeks ago, while in January and February of this year I had a whole bunch of editors with grudges against me, who knew perfectly well that my IBANs had been requested by me to protect me from hounding and minimize drahma, openly talking about site-banning me because "How many IBANs are we gonna allow this guy to have before it's the last straw?"), and I never received a response. Frankly editing has not been anywhere near as enjoyable as once was since that experience, which was a big part in what was nearly a decision to leave the project entirely this January (which incident, coincidentally enough, Bish no doubt remembers) and the massive dropoff in my editing rate (particularly my article editing rate) since then. (BTW, I harbour no ill will to that particular Arb -- he did something very kind to me not long after, which I won't go into detail on -- but I think the institution of ArbCom, which seems perfectly happy to throw content creators to the lions at ANI rather than admit they or their predecessors screwed something up, needs to change.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- There was also another occasion, last year, ArbCom blocked an obvious sock IP for attempting to out me, but the editor's obvious main account (which only ever edited from 9:00 to 5:00, Monday to Friday, and so was clearly dodging CU by never logging in except on a specific work computer with a static) continued to edit freely for another for months before eventually retiring without ever facing sanctions (I guess the person changed work computers). I emailed ArbCom about it but never got a response, and a month later opened an SPI out of frustration, with the SPI being closed within three hours without comment (by a non-Arb -- I'm not implying that ArbCom was conspiring to protect my harasser, just that ArbCom didn't lift a finger to remove him from the site). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- It would be absurd to say that arb com gets everything right. For everything that it does or does not do, some people always think it seriously in error--if it were otherwise, there would be no controversies to deal with. Some of the work is trivial and obvious, but much of it deals with interpretation, judgment, and nuance. It's necessary to guess what is probable, not come by some exact process of analysis to what is certain. It certainly surprised me, as it surprises every new member, how much nonpublic work there is--the visible part of ArbCom work is the smaller. Most matters--sometimes even quite small matters--are not unanimous--everyone on the committee sees things differently--sometimes very differently. There's a rule that we do not discuss how we voted in private, only give the decision (this is a rule which I have always opposed , since in the actual cases we vote openly), but I have nonetheless sometimes indicated where I at least did not agree with the majority, and I've previously said this was very frequent.
- In general I agree with Hiraji (that's in general, not necessarily in the matters he mentions involving himself) that the committee have in my 4 years at least been very much too reluctant to consider problems, and have tried not exactly to do as little as possible, but to avoid doing anything that could possibly be done without us. This is no secret--it is only necessary to look at the discussions on whether to accept cases.
- I do not know whether arb com was even told about this particular decision, but in my years individual people in T&S would sometimes give informal hints of what they were doing, and we were always extremely careful with what they told us. There are some matters they truly ought not trust us with--primarily legal matters and some particularly sensitive personal ones. But it is my opinion, and I know that of many others on the committee, that we were continually frustrated--and sometimes quite angry--at how little they told us: their bias was always to say as little as possible. And the inevitable reaction to this, is that, at least speaking for myself, I do not trust them.
- There is a check on arb com--a considerable number of WPedians have been on the committee at one time or another--it's not that small a circle. In contrast, very few people have been on T&S, and most of them had no previous experience with WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the honest comment about T&S. Putting on a reductionist hat, a basic truth is that WMF employees are required to protect the interests of the WMF. This is not the same as protecting the interests or values of Wikipedia. The distinction is not a hypothetical one, as those of us that have been around long enough know cases where this difference has harmed both individuals and the project. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @DGG: there have been times when ARBCOM recorded publicly votes that were taken in private. That certainly happened at times when we were both on the committee. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- DGG's take does not reflect my own thoughts. While I agree with his first two paragraphs, we diverge on the last two. I completely understand why T&S is tight-lipped about their ban investigations with the ArbCom and with the rest of the community. They are more open with the ArbCom than with the general public, as they understand that we are required to keep confidential what they share with us, but I think people need a little perspective: members of the ArbCom are volunteers who do not necessarily have much experience with community management, sensitive issues involving harassment, or anything with legal ramifications. Furthermore, the ArbCom lists have leaked in the past. The less they share with anyone, even people who've signed confidentiality agreements, the better they protect the people whose privacy they are trying to maintain. I obviously can't know what they don't share with us and so can't speak to whether I think that on balance they share enough, but my general impression is that they are quite adept at keeping us in the loop where we need to be, informing us of actions they will take (such as this one) as a courtesy, and keeping private other things that they handle that are not within ArbCom's purview (child protection being a good example). DGG is probably correct that their bias is to share as little as possible, which I respect. Personally, I do trust the Trust & Safety team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: - I'm not being humorous when I say that T&S does not show any sign of experience with community management. A bias towards sharing as little as possible is directly counter to any accused being able to defend themselves against specific charges. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I meant they bias towards sharing as little as possible with the ArbCom. I do not know how much they share with the people they ban. Sharing more details about office bans with the ArbCom would not be useful as far as the banned parties defending themselves, as office bans are not appealable to the ArbCom. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The last line of that is obviously true, but isn't really why people want sharing with ARBCOM. Preferably ArbCom could handle it, but if ArbCom had said "yes this was a reasonable decision by T&S, we can't say anything else", there'd have been some, but much less uproar. Going off Fram's statement, if the one edit cited was literally everything, that would be an absurd ban. Otherwise there would need to be additional concerns, which don't seem to have been indicated. While they've now written a much more civil and personable message, it didn't contain anything on how an effective defence was/could be made by Fram (or any other accused). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ever since Office bans have existed, the WMF has chosen not to share detailed rationales for their bans with the Committee, and given the types of behaviors office bans historically tended to address, this is a very reasonable choice on their part. There are a lot of people making a lot of unequivocal statements about how the Office should or shouldn't have protected the information behind the ban, which is absurd to me given that no one making these statements knows what it is. At some point we have to accept that there are things the Wikimedia Foundation cannot and will not share with the community, including the ArbCom, and that the only people who are able to determine what can or should be shared with some or all of the community are those who have that information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why be tight lipped or vague? Tort law. You just don't say things you absolutely do not have to say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- This necessitates an ability to know that the WMF will a) Be fair b) Enable an ability for a defence by the accused c) Always make good (not flawless, but good) decisions. The WMF's refusal to be transparent has hidden serious errors before, (knowledge engine, anyone?) and transparency aside, they make other mistakes too frequently for me to be willing to think that T&S is getting it so right that they don't need external oversight. Nosebagbear (talk)
- In response to Alanscottwalker, while he's right on the reason why they act like this, surely the hypocrisy of the WMF to be suing the NSA over such issues while thinking that their own refusal to be open in order to protect others is justified is evident? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in the least, the communications you want from them are about identifiable living people, communications that would be used to identify and perhaps harm them, and communications which would be used explicitly and unequivocally to trash the reputations of people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want them - as the discussion above (which I fully accept I've been heavily involved in derailing, for which I apologise - it should really be held on WP:FRAM) was accepting, some degree of privacy is critical. There's a good post there recently, pointing out that T&S' awful communication has lead to a loss of trust. Without it, there's no default acceptance of the WMF as correct. That and my concern about any accused being able to make a complete defence are my primary concerns. The latter of which is on the list below. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- But you do want them, you want those communications to be made outside the WMF, but the WMF is the one with the tort liability. Perhaps worse, the people outside the WMF then become liable if they act on or pass along the communication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want them - as the discussion above (which I fully accept I've been heavily involved in derailing, for which I apologise - it should really be held on WP:FRAM) was accepting, some degree of privacy is critical. There's a good post there recently, pointing out that T&S' awful communication has lead to a loss of trust. Without it, there's no default acceptance of the WMF as correct. That and my concern about any accused being able to make a complete defence are my primary concerns. The latter of which is on the list below. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in the least, the communications you want from them are about identifiable living people, communications that would be used to identify and perhaps harm them, and communications which would be used explicitly and unequivocally to trash the reputations of people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The last line of that is obviously true, but isn't really why people want sharing with ARBCOM. Preferably ArbCom could handle it, but if ArbCom had said "yes this was a reasonable decision by T&S, we can't say anything else", there'd have been some, but much less uproar. Going off Fram's statement, if the one edit cited was literally everything, that would be an absurd ban. Otherwise there would need to be additional concerns, which don't seem to have been indicated. While they've now written a much more civil and personable message, it didn't contain anything on how an effective defence was/could be made by Fram (or any other accused). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I meant they bias towards sharing as little as possible with the ArbCom. I do not know how much they share with the people they ban. Sharing more details about office bans with the ArbCom would not be useful as far as the banned parties defending themselves, as office bans are not appealable to the ArbCom. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: - I'm not being humorous when I say that T&S does not show any sign of experience with community management. A bias towards sharing as little as possible is directly counter to any accused being able to defend themselves against specific charges. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- DGG's take does not reflect my own thoughts. While I agree with his first two paragraphs, we diverge on the last two. I completely understand why T&S is tight-lipped about their ban investigations with the ArbCom and with the rest of the community. They are more open with the ArbCom than with the general public, as they understand that we are required to keep confidential what they share with us, but I think people need a little perspective: members of the ArbCom are volunteers who do not necessarily have much experience with community management, sensitive issues involving harassment, or anything with legal ramifications. Furthermore, the ArbCom lists have leaked in the past. The less they share with anyone, even people who've signed confidentiality agreements, the better they protect the people whose privacy they are trying to maintain. I obviously can't know what they don't share with us and so can't speak to whether I think that on balance they share enough, but my general impression is that they are quite adept at keeping us in the loop where we need to be, informing us of actions they will take (such as this one) as a courtesy, and keeping private other things that they handle that are not within ArbCom's purview (child protection being a good example). DGG is probably correct that their bias is to share as little as possible, which I respect. Personally, I do trust the Trust & Safety team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- As is obvious, GW and I have long had different perspectives on this, and each member of arb com has their own personal views also. This is a positive element of arb com: it assures that all aspects are considered. (Tho some arb coms have had a wider diversity of views than others). There are some matters that need to be handled with greater security and --hopefully--professionalism than arb com can provide. The WMF has long handled matters involving threats of violence, and after long struggle, 5 years ago they agreed to handle child protection. These are matters where great care is needed--there is almost always no good that can come from a public confrontation, the possible consequences are serious, and so are the consequences of an erroneous accusation--a factor which even by itself calls for non-public discussion. Some types of matters involving both on and off-wiki harassment might fall into this class also. But the ordinary on-wiki harassment usually does not. The security arb com offers is sufficient--there have been no significant breeches of this for many years. In 4 years with a variety of people, there has been only 1 instance of an arb who did not seem to take their responsibility seriously, and that individual was removed before any harm was done--the same problem could happen at the foundation--for all I know, it might have. There is no reason to think that professionalism of those with little familiarity with WP can do any better than the experience in arb com. There's no reason to think the decisions of a few people acting in a manner without direct personal responsibility are better than those of a wider group here whose opinions are public.
- There is a serious limiting factor in dealing with harassment, in the real world, and on-wiki. Sometimes dealing with it properly will cause additional harm. Sometimes dealing in private can reduce this, but not always. At arb com, we alert people to this, and ask them to make an informed choice if they want to proceed. Sometimes they do not, and we respect that, even though it means that we can not do proper preventative justice to the offender. The present case is one where the postulated protection for the complainant's privacy by dealing in private was not successful--the attempt for greater privacy had the reverse effect entirely.
- We may not be able do do justice, but we must avoid doing injustice. This is the basic principle of do no harm that underlies all of WP's dealings with living people and with our users. In this case, dealing with the matter in private did in fact do no harm to the accused, but that's because the problem was already quite open, and haas been so for many years, -- and, in point of fact, the penalty in my opinion not all that unreasonable. Just speaking for myself, it's what I would have voted for if it had come to the committee while I was on arb com. This will not be true always. The danger of using in camera procedures is their great capacity for doing injustice. We're not a legal system, and the adverse consequences are lower; but any system awarding penalties is a quasi-judicial system, and the rule against in-camera proceeding goes deeper than the Anglo-American legal system--it's a basic principle of fairness. To me, it's a basic principle of moral behavior that I would depart from only for compelling reasons of true personal or community safety, not the sort of garden variety harassment being discussed here. Others apparently think differently, but I would like to think they have not sufficiently considered the implications of proceeding in general in the manner that was done here.
- The power to proceed without openness and personal responsibility causes people to lose perspective. The necessary functions of dealining privately with exceptional matters led T&S to do so even when not necessary--and, judging from their statements, to intend to use this power more widely. It's always convenient to not have to explain oneself, and not have to deal with dissent. This convenience is what leads to systems entirely the opposite of what WP stands for. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Since I unblocked Fram, perhaps it's worth registering my agreement with GorillaWarfare in her comment above.[8] (Maybe not the last sentence.) I don't regret my unblock, but looking at the occasion I mentioned at the top of this thread,[9] where ArbCom was subject to a lot of ignorant speculation and sometimes frankly paranoid guesses and attacks, has focused for me some similarities with what people are now saying and assuming about WMF Office. These similarities make me uncomfortable. There are certainly wise comments at WP:FRAM — see for example Risker's post[10] — but there is also a good deal of assumption of bad faith/incompetence based on nothing better than ignorance. In my opinion. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC).
Questions to be addressed
What I see from this so far extremely constructive discussion is
- ArbCom handles privacy issues, including off-wiki harassment, reasonably well.
- ArbCom does not handle on-wiki harassment well and is not actually designed to handle it properly:
- Different users have very different civility standards;
- Different users have different civility standards in various circumstances;
- We do not even have a working definition of harassment, and what actually is harassment is subject to wide interpretations;
- It is unclear how on-wiki harassment must be documented (very roughly, how many diffs are needed);
- There is no current practice to have closed hearing of cases solely based on open on-wiki evidence;
- There is no current specific practice to defend the harassed victim against further harassment during open on-wiki discussion (in whatever forum) of their case;
- During the hearing, the alleged harasser must have a right to defend themselves, and it is unclear how to keep the privacy during these communications.
- Is it reasonable to have a minimum civility standard ("bright line") and if yes, what would be its relation with the code of conduct currently being developed by the WMF?
- Are we happy with our policies, WP:CIVILITY and WP:HARASSMENT, or we want to amend/expand them?
Please feel free to add more issues or cross out those which are in fact non-issues. The next question will obviously be how we can address them, but first we need to agree on what we are addressing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- There's also the related, further issue of the lack of anti-retaliation measures, and how existing policies (WP:OUTING comes to mind) make it a difficult matter. In particular when retaliation comes from non-parties acting in support of parties. The risk of third party pile-on, in particular off-wiki, isn't something ArbCom is equipped to manage adequately, and any adjustment towards changing that is also eminently subject to gaming. MLauba (Talk) 14:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting this discussion. Consensus on a definition of "harassment" is probably needed before we can find a way to stop it. That's difficult because "harassment" isn't really a specific action, it's the effect of action(s). If I told you to "go and harass that guy", it'd be up to you to figure out how, exactly. The same goes with the word "civility". I can say, "act civilly", but that's very non-specific, and it differs by culture and by person. Something that is civil in one culture (like sitting in a chair vs. on the floor, or making certain hand gestures, or spitting) can be considered very uncivil in another. It may be better to think in terms of specific actions as "do's" and "don'ts", because such actions can be reasonably interpreted as harassment or incivility. Examples of "such actions" may or may not include: threats of harm, un-evidenced accusations of misconduct (casting aspersions), profanity, outing/doxing, "following" editors to articles, making "too many" (however defined) negative commends about another editor or another editor's edits, ad hominem attacks, etc. There's no way to make a bright-line 3RR-type rule for civility (if you tell someone to "f off" three times in 24 hours, you get blocked), but the benefit of setting clearer expectations (do's and don'ts) is that everyone has the opportunity to adjust their conduct to avoid sanction. (And as a bonus we can demonstrate that our standards exceed the minimum standards of the TOU, and that our standards are enforced.) – Levivich 02:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: FWIW, something along the lines of
if you tell someone to "f off" three times in 24 hours, you get blocked
was actually proposed at WT:CIVIL and pretty roundly shot down, by everyone except those who were specifically on one side of the case that inspired the proposal, a little before you registered your account. Attempts to "clarify" in policy pages that "X is unacceptable" are almost always rejected because context matters, and such things are usually a judgement call. is, put simply, not how such a situation would work: tendentious editors would work hard to make sure whoever they are trolling violates that "bright line", and then would vehemently argue at ANI that since their victim violated that bright line they need to be blocked, and while the proper result of such a case should be either the apology and promise to change on the part of the tendentious editor in question or their indefinite block, attaining such a result would just be made more difficult than it already is if the excuse could be offered that "the policy is technically on their side". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)- Exactly. This isn't a "bright line" scenario. Quite often, when I see someone claim "X is hounding me!", it turns out to be "I keep doing something I shouldn't be doing, and X makes sure I get caught!". "X keeps saying I haven't sufficiently sourced my articles!" "Well...you haven't, so X is right. Find sources before you start an article next time, like you should have been doing already, and the problem goes away." It's a very case by case thing, but most claims of "harassment" turn out to be bogus. (That does not in any way mean that when someone is genuinely being harassed, we should not act; not all claims are bogus.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- In terms of Wikipedia, civility (and harassment by extension) are not bright-line issues. It's more of a call-and-response kind of thing (that might not be the right term). When someone does something uncivil, we mostly rely on community response to have someone say, "Hey, @Jerry, that was not a very nice thing to say. Maybe tone it down?" And then we expect the editor to acknowledge the complaint (preferably) or we have ways to force them to comply (warnings, discussions, reviews, interaction bans, blocks, site bans, right up to global bans and reporting to external authorities for very serious cases). Using a specific example to illustrate the concept: when someone complains at ANI that someone told them to "fuck off", our response ought to be asking the offending user to behave, even if we regularly don't block people for that specific choice of word. We need to STOP telling the offended editor that THEY'RE wrong to be offended, because some arcane back-channel (to them) discussion decided long ago that saying "fuck" is okay. The point is not causing offense, not just not using specific words. Most editors don't complain, they just leave.
- But then of course there's the "you really shouldn't have to be told this is wrong" kind of stuff, like (not an exhaustive list!) racial slurs, all-caps epithet-laden tirades, directed threats, doxxing, what we call hounding but is really obvious targeted harassment, and on and on and on, and it's happening all the time all over the project. To combat it we need admins to be less lenient in blocking when this kind of behaviour is identified and/or reported, but we don't have broad community buy-in that this is actually any kind of problem. There's a small but very vocal part of the community that insists this sort of behaviour is just par for the course on the internet, as though one must consent to harassment and violence by virtue of existing online, and they keep moving the goalposts of demanding a "fair trial for the accused". I know I have specifically declined to intervene in borderline harassment cases because of that vocal minority - I'm a volunteer, I don't need the bother of a weeks-long Arbcom trial because I blocked someone who mused about looking up a female editor's home address in a dispute but also they've created 10,000 articles, and people think content creation is more important than a safe editing environment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think this last part of Ivanvector's writing is crucial. If we're going to say that context matters in civility, then we have to be willing to tolerate sysops using their discretion, both to act and not act. Context matters has sometimes seen to me to be a way to suggest we don't enforce civility at all. And while I agree with Ivan, there clearly isn't community consensus that we should be supportive of people who get (reasonably) offended by another editor - a real part of our community feels that if you can't deal with offense you shouldn't be an editor here. That has always felt to our discredit to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is all fine, and I enthusiastically agree, the problem is, this is a proposal of the kind "we need to do X more actively". X can be done more actively by two means: (i) changing policies (which could be Wikipedia policies, which are more difficult to change, or say ArbCom practices on which they decide themselves and thus which are much easier to change), and (ii) changing practices by personal examples. Whereas I personally could even prefer (ii), it has obvious disadvantages, and this is why all big communities such as countries only use (i). We are still not big enough for that, however, behavior paradigm shifts are really difficult and are not possible without a large agreement which so far I do not see. In practical terms, I once blocked a disruptive user with a large following base for disruptive behavior - the user was unblocked within minutes and continued the same behavior. I do not see how thic could be changed unless policies (incrementally) come first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- What we ask admin to do vis-a-vis policing civility is akin to telling a police officer to go out here and stop crime, and when they ask "What counts as a crime? What are the laws here?", we say, "I don't know, whatever you think it is. We trust your judgment." We have a WP:CSD that is fairly detailed in listing the specific circumstances under which a page should or should not be deleted by unilateral admin action; for everything else, we discuss and act by consensus. What if we had a "civility criteria for speedy block"? A list of circumstances, like CSD, when any admin can and should issue a block; for anything not on the list, send it to a noticeboard. – Levivich 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector:
We need to STOP telling the offended editor that THEY'RE wrong to be offended
Umm... were you referring to the specific "fuck off" ANI discussion I mentioned immediately above? That ended (quite rightly!) with the NOTHERE editor pretending to be "offended" getting indeffed. Bad-faith trolling of editors so they say "fuck" seems to be a much more prevalent problem than foul-mouthed editors throwing F-bombs and causing good-faith boyscouts to be legitimately offended, so saying or implying that AGF applies more to editors who say they are offended by the phrase "fuck off" than to editors who say "fuck off" seems like a bad idea. (Also, given the venue, I should point out that ArbCom has a "civil POV pusher problem" that was recognized by most of the candidates I asked about the matter last year.)Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector:
- What we ask admin to do vis-a-vis policing civility is akin to telling a police officer to go out here and stop crime, and when they ask "What counts as a crime? What are the laws here?", we say, "I don't know, whatever you think it is. We trust your judgment." We have a WP:CSD that is fairly detailed in listing the specific circumstances under which a page should or should not be deleted by unilateral admin action; for everything else, we discuss and act by consensus. What if we had a "civility criteria for speedy block"? A list of circumstances, like CSD, when any admin can and should issue a block; for anything not on the list, send it to a noticeboard. – Levivich 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is all fine, and I enthusiastically agree, the problem is, this is a proposal of the kind "we need to do X more actively". X can be done more actively by two means: (i) changing policies (which could be Wikipedia policies, which are more difficult to change, or say ArbCom practices on which they decide themselves and thus which are much easier to change), and (ii) changing practices by personal examples. Whereas I personally could even prefer (ii), it has obvious disadvantages, and this is why all big communities such as countries only use (i). We are still not big enough for that, however, behavior paradigm shifts are really difficult and are not possible without a large agreement which so far I do not see. In practical terms, I once blocked a disruptive user with a large following base for disruptive behavior - the user was unblocked within minutes and continued the same behavior. I do not see how thic could be changed unless policies (incrementally) come first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think this last part of Ivanvector's writing is crucial. If we're going to say that context matters in civility, then we have to be willing to tolerate sysops using their discretion, both to act and not act. Context matters has sometimes seen to me to be a way to suggest we don't enforce civility at all. And while I agree with Ivan, there clearly isn't community consensus that we should be supportive of people who get (reasonably) offended by another editor - a real part of our community feels that if you can't deal with offense you shouldn't be an editor here. That has always felt to our discredit to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, That's a nice summary of a challenging problem. I'm sympathetic to the idea that true cases of harassment ought to be handled discreetly and privately, but there are definitely situations where one person feels harassed, and a sober assessment is they are getting called out for bad edits. I'm not sure how to resolve this. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: I'm not sure the situation you describe is all that difficult to figure out how to resolve, although I agree it's a very unfortunate problem whose quite simple solution might be difficult for anyone with a moral compass to execute without feeling guilty. If a sober assessment on the part of everyone else says the editor who feels harassed is getting called out for bad edits, then, regardless of their feelings, they have to stop making the bad edits in question. I've seen it happen a few times that the editors in question refuse to acknowledge that their edits are bad, and ultimately they either leave the project in frustration that their bad edits never get through, are subjected to a limited TBAN and consequently leave the project in frustration, or (rarely) push the issue so far that they are site-banned. There are a lot of people both on Wikipedia and in real life who simply can't admit to wrongdoing no matter how hard others try to convince them to, and those are the people most likely to feel "harassed" as a result of everyone telling them they are wrong, and, while it's sad to say as much, such people really can't contribute to Wikipedia in the long term. Ultimately we can't enforce a policy that forbids the action of defending the encyclopedia against people whose specific circumstances prevent them from admitting that their edits are bad and changing how they edit, and cause them to feel harassed by the said defense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hijiri88, I think we are largely on the same page but I still have some concerns. Under the current schema, editors with concerns about another editor can follow the dispute resolution process, which is well documented. If they feel personally harassed, there is another option, not quite as well documented, wherein they can submit private and confidential evidence to Arbcom. You and I are in complete agreement that if ArbCom assesses the evidence, and concludes that the complaining editor is unhappy because there bad edits are being challenged, then ArbCom "simply" has to craft a carefully worded response to that editor. However, suppose the conclusion is that there are problems serious enough to result in penalties, perhaps I bans, strong admonitions, and a short-term block rather than the global block the complaining editor might want. A strong admonition could be delivered in private but very awkward if you cannot explain what prompted it. Worse, imposing a short block and and IBAN without disclosing the confidential evidence is problematic. Maybe there's a way to navigate this but it seems quite challenging. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: I'm not sure the situation you describe is all that difficult to figure out how to resolve, although I agree it's a very unfortunate problem whose quite simple solution might be difficult for anyone with a moral compass to execute without feeling guilty. If a sober assessment on the part of everyone else says the editor who feels harassed is getting called out for bad edits, then, regardless of their feelings, they have to stop making the bad edits in question. I've seen it happen a few times that the editors in question refuse to acknowledge that their edits are bad, and ultimately they either leave the project in frustration that their bad edits never get through, are subjected to a limited TBAN and consequently leave the project in frustration, or (rarely) push the issue so far that they are site-banned. There are a lot of people both on Wikipedia and in real life who simply can't admit to wrongdoing no matter how hard others try to convince them to, and those are the people most likely to feel "harassed" as a result of everyone telling them they are wrong, and, while it's sad to say as much, such people really can't contribute to Wikipedia in the long term. Ultimately we can't enforce a policy that forbids the action of defending the encyclopedia against people whose specific circumstances prevent them from admitting that their edits are bad and changing how they edit, and cause them to feel harassed by the said defense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. This isn't a "bright line" scenario. Quite often, when I see someone claim "X is hounding me!", it turns out to be "I keep doing something I shouldn't be doing, and X makes sure I get caught!". "X keeps saying I haven't sufficiently sourced my articles!" "Well...you haven't, so X is right. Find sources before you start an article next time, like you should have been doing already, and the problem goes away." It's a very case by case thing, but most claims of "harassment" turn out to be bogus. (That does not in any way mean that when someone is genuinely being harassed, we should not act; not all claims are bogus.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: FWIW, something along the lines of
- On the "very different civility standards" point: The observation that civility is (to some degree) relative has generally been used to set standards for civility as low as possible (if no one could possibly think this is civil, then it is forbidden--and maybe not even then). There is no reason this has to be the case, though. Maybe if civility standards are relative, we should all be held to the highest possible standards. That's not what I'm advocating, but I think we need to throw out "civility is relative" as an excuse for the foul environment we have here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- On the question of private vs. public in arbitration: What about a private system for requesting arbitration and submitting evidence, but a public process for adjudicating the evidence? In many or most cases, there is no one "victim"--it's a pattern of bullying behavior across the encyclopedia. Now no one wants to come forward to confront the bully, because it opens them up to additional bullying not only by that person but by all of their friends. But suppose there were a mechanism to submit evidence privately, especially evidence not specific to one "victim", and then arbcom could publish this evidence, provide an opportunity for response, then evaluate and assess possible sanctions. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- ArbCom already accepts evidence by email for circumstances where privacy would be a concern. It'd just be a matter of expanding the requirements to include situations where the person submitting the evidence fears reprisal. And, of course, ArbCom should shield the submitter's identity in such cases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- If I follow what you're thinking, Calliopejen1, I think it won't work. We really can't anonymize investigations on Wikipedia, or I can't see any reliable way that we could. "Public" in my mind suggests that diffs will be presented, and, well, there's an editor's name tied to every edit. Maybe editors' names are oversighted pending investigation, or we just republish anonymized highlights of an interaction? Someone's going to be able to figure out who said what without a whole lot of effort. This also risks victimizing those accused of harassment, which we also have to consider. I think this process really needs to start with anonymity for the reporters. How do you build in an ability for the accused to respond? Well, for serious cases, you don't. After the Committee (or a committee) evaluates the complaint, if the Committee agrees it's serious enough, they inform the user they violated our standards and that they're banned. People find that objectionable and rightly so to an extent, but for very obvious and serious cases we need to be willing to respect the arbitration process - we elect Arbcom, that's probably as close as we're going to get to transparency when private matters are involved. For less sensitive or serious cases, the Committee can advise the reporter that the complaint doesn't rise to our standards of misconduct, and that they can try the various dispute resolution methods to try to seek a resolution. If we don't do something like this as a community, with discussion and control over the process, then it seems the WMF has made clear to us that they're going to serve this function for us, their way, without our input and with no community control. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: - Your point about figuring it out is correct. However, I just view that lack of a defence as one-sided and too unfair for me to accept it (saying "well WMF will do it if we don't" may be true, but isn't sufficient to accept it). Two potential mitigations are 1) A couple of "Advocates" who will speak for the individual - the problem being that if the defence is on information not clear to ARBCOM, it can't be to the advocate. 2) Do let the defendent know of the specific evidence - off-wiki. Make it clear that any revealing of identity on or off-wiki will be met with a PERMABAAN. This obviously comes with the "well, if they end up Permabanned anyway, what do they have to lose?". However, I feel if we must accept our choice of poison, this middle-ground is better than other alternatives. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- If only Wikipedia were the whole Internet. If a person is accused of a crime and the person then harasses and threatens the accuser, they've dug a deeper hole for themselves (regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty of the first crime). Maybe bail gets revoked or they get charged with something new, but all this would be on top of whatever they were originally facing. If a person files a harassment allegation and the accuser learns the identity they can then harass the accuser in new and different off-Wiki ways even if we deal out the maximum wikipunishment. There are real risks for accusers in both meatspace and wikispace but inherently less protection online than off for non-anonymous accusers. That doesn't make charges against a person which they have no way of defending more tolerable. Perhaps we can take lessons from terrorism cases where lawyers might have security clearances to see information and charges against their client that they can't share with that client as a model? Whether this happens through a Chinese wall at WMF with someone on T&S or through some sort of "public defender" functionary with ArbCom, I don't know but am throwing it out there for how to protect accusers and accused online. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I'm envisioning this as functioning for on-wiki conduct only, and ideally where there are many victims. Let's say that User:Concernedobserver notices User:Serialoffender running around wreaking havoc across the project (but User:Concernedobserver may not have even interacted with User:Serialoffender). I'm thinking of a mechanism where User:Concernedobserver could report User:Serialoffender, without associating his/her name with the report. (Here, the conduct of User:Concernedobserver would not even be at issue.) Or perhaps User:Concernedobserver reports at one time, and User:Concernedobserver2 reports at another time, and the committee could have all of the relevant evidence before it. I'd like there to be a way for the committee to evaluate User:Serialoffender's conduct without having to involve the victims at all. User:Serialoffender would have a right to respond, and the community could see the relevant evidence, though. (There would be unredacted diffs, but no one would know if User:Victim or User:Concernedobserver did the reporting. Obviously, this would work better where there are multiple victims so the lynchmob doesn't retaliate against User:Victim by default. And of course User:Victim could report anonymously, and no one could conclusively determine whether the reporter was User:Victim or User:Concernedobserver.) Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Calliopejen1: - 3rd party accusations of high level harassment are relatively rare. It's also less critical on the retribution come-back as it's not an instance of "I'm stuck between complaining (with blowback) or continuing to be harassed". A bigger issue, is that in this identity-hidden case, the harasser might go "well, not knowing differently, I'll hold my most harassed victim responsible" - bringing someone into the frame against their will. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- One reason why they're rare is that a third party sticking their nose in will certainly be the next victim. I find much of the atmosphere toxic, but there is no way in hell that I would file a case against one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLEs. Third-party complaints might not be so rare if there were a different reporting system in place. Of course, I agree that victims could be brought in against their will. With Fram, that obviously happened with Laura Hale, even though no one knows conclusively who the reporter was. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Calliopejen1: - 3rd party accusations of high level harassment are relatively rare. It's also less critical on the retribution come-back as it's not an instance of "I'm stuck between complaining (with blowback) or continuing to be harassed". A bigger issue, is that in this identity-hidden case, the harasser might go "well, not knowing differently, I'll hold my most harassed victim responsible" - bringing someone into the frame against their will. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: - Your point about figuring it out is correct. However, I just view that lack of a defence as one-sided and too unfair for me to accept it (saying "well WMF will do it if we don't" may be true, but isn't sufficient to accept it). Two potential mitigations are 1) A couple of "Advocates" who will speak for the individual - the problem being that if the defence is on information not clear to ARBCOM, it can't be to the advocate. 2) Do let the defendent know of the specific evidence - off-wiki. Make it clear that any revealing of identity on or off-wiki will be met with a PERMABAAN. This obviously comes with the "well, if they end up Permabanned anyway, what do they have to lose?". However, I feel if we must accept our choice of poison, this middle-ground is better than other alternatives. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- If I follow what you're thinking, Calliopejen1, I think it won't work. We really can't anonymize investigations on Wikipedia, or I can't see any reliable way that we could. "Public" in my mind suggests that diffs will be presented, and, well, there's an editor's name tied to every edit. Maybe editors' names are oversighted pending investigation, or we just republish anonymized highlights of an interaction? Someone's going to be able to figure out who said what without a whole lot of effort. This also risks victimizing those accused of harassment, which we also have to consider. I think this process really needs to start with anonymity for the reporters. How do you build in an ability for the accused to respond? Well, for serious cases, you don't. After the Committee (or a committee) evaluates the complaint, if the Committee agrees it's serious enough, they inform the user they violated our standards and that they're banned. People find that objectionable and rightly so to an extent, but for very obvious and serious cases we need to be willing to respect the arbitration process - we elect Arbcom, that's probably as close as we're going to get to transparency when private matters are involved. For less sensitive or serious cases, the Committee can advise the reporter that the complaint doesn't rise to our standards of misconduct, and that they can try the various dispute resolution methods to try to seek a resolution. If we don't do something like this as a community, with discussion and control over the process, then it seems the WMF has made clear to us that they're going to serve this function for us, their way, without our input and with no community control. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- ArbCom already accepts evidence by email for circumstances where privacy would be a concern. It'd just be a matter of expanding the requirements to include situations where the person submitting the evidence fears reprisal. And, of course, ArbCom should shield the submitter's identity in such cases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- If one of the concerns is the 'star chamber' thing, you could still have private proceedings in specific situations. E.g. complaints go to T&S. If they are found to have some merit by T&S, T&S refers the case to ARBCOM, alongside the evidence, and both T&S and ARBCOM must agree that an action is warranted (after a coordinated investigation). Or something like that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The WMF Consultation on the Issue
The WMF appears to be having a consultation on a private reporting tool of harasssment - to be handled by the WMF. They are also planning on bringing in a universal code of conduct.
There's only 2 weeks left on the tool side of consulting - so please go add your thoughts.
The timing isn't iffy, but the lack of publicising is - the talk page got banners, why not this? In any case, please spread the word. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Over there at the consultation it looks to me as if the WMF is expanding its hegemony over the individual Wikipedias. Perhaps not consciously, but more likely because they feel they must due to their belief that the local Wikis are not sufficiently competent to address these issues themselves. IMO the WMF spokespersons, in the manner of skilled politicians, have carefully sidestepped some of the serious concerns voiced there by Risker ad MER-C. What the WMF always fails to understand is that among a large community such as that of en.Wiki for example, there is a far greater greater number of qualified and experienced sociologists than there are at Trust & Safety, and just because the volunteers are not salaried does not mean they are any less competent (though they may be less afraid of losing their unpaid job though if they screw up).
- Where Wikipedia fails is that there is so little interest in becoming a member of Arbcom that the seats just have to filled from an ever decreasing list of candidates who happen to put themselves forward. Admittedly there are, or have been, some real gems among our arbitrators, but by and large it's not a group in whom the community nowadays seems to have much confidence. Most regular Wikipedia maintenace workers have some insight into what adminship entails, but no one know what he Committee does until they've been there.
- Like adminship - which is is filled by users who come under a great deal more scrutiny, an open voting system, and a much higher bar - Arbcom needs to be made more attractive to potential candidates who genuinely possess the Wiki-knowledge and the required social skills, rather than perhaps just pursuing their own agendas or fulfilling their ultimate dream of having held yet another one of Wikipedia's most important positions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've generally been satisfied with the past and present arbcom members despite inevitable stuff that I disagree with. Every election there have been some scary candidates but they rarely get elected. By comparison, bad admins are chosen all the time. I can't offhand think of anyone I want on arbcom who hasn't (past or present) already been on it. It's enough of a time sink that serving more than a term or two is beyond the call of duty. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Nosebagbear, I left an update on the consultation page on Meta about the User reporting system. I apologize if my not updating the page left you concerned that the project was moving forward without having adequate feedback from English Wikipedia. As stated on Meta, the project is temporarily stalled for about a month now because of changes in personnel and project scope adjustments to sync it with the Foundations new Medium Term Plan. Boring reasons that I usually wouldn't mention on wiki. Normally, I start a project page on English Wikipedia. For this consultation, I haven't got to that stage yet. Do you think I should start one on ENWP or are folks happy to go to Meta?
I'm going to make substantive replies to other comments in other posts. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- SPoore (WMF), I think you will hear from a wider segment of the English Wikipedia editor base of you create a page here as you'd originally thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think an ideal outcome would be first a en-wiki discussion on whether we need our own code of conduct, what would be its status, and what would be the relation with the WMF-developed code of conduct. WMF input would be very welcome to this discussion, but I think it should precede discussion of specific behaviours covered or not covered by this code. This probably needs to be an RfC, and if there are user interesting in (co-)organizing it I think we should just do it now, especially since we have a month Flo mentions here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Ymblanter, one point of clarification: the user reporting system and the universal code of conduct are two separate initiatives. The user reporting system is part tech and part social (workflows, access, training, policy, etc.) And the universal code of conduct is for the most part only policy. Both projects are complicated because they involve comprehensive consultations with many communities. These initiatives are not going to happen really fast so there is no rush. I'll share timelines and plans as soon as I know more. This is my long winded way of saying that you can expect consultations about the user reporting system and the ucoc to be separate. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think an ideal outcome would be first a en-wiki discussion on whether we need our own code of conduct, what would be its status, and what would be the relation with the WMF-developed code of conduct. WMF input would be very welcome to this discussion, but I think it should precede discussion of specific behaviours covered or not covered by this code. This probably needs to be an RfC, and if there are user interesting in (co-)organizing it I think we should just do it now, especially since we have a month Flo mentions here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Encouraging collaborative behaviour
I believe we need to examine how the Wikipedia editing environment selects for uncollaborative behaviour. As I've written about before, consensus decision making favours those who are less accommodating over those who are more accommodating. Using consensus to make decisions only works when there is a strong alignment in goals and principles, but this is impossible to maintain as a group grows in size. (For example, some people may feel that English Wikipedia should be written at a fifth-grade reading level, to make it more accessible to a wider readership, while others may feel that it should be written at an eighth-grade reading level, to allow for greater concision when explaining complex topics. Both viewpoints are valid; they just are products of different underlying goals.) As a result, uncollaborative behaviour is one mechanism to essentially reduce the numbers of those holding discussions, excluding those who don't want to engage in protracted discussions with those behaving poorly, which will (as Risker said elsewhere in a slightly different context) "[burn up] social capital and sweat equity".
Although it would by no means be a panacea, I believe a key part of a solution to encourage collaborative behaviour is to introduce better content dispute-resolution mechanisms. For example, if there were a form of mandatory binding editorial review, disputes could be definitively settled, and disputants would gain much less benefit from being uncollaborative to each other. (Of course that is just a one-sentence concept and not a fully fledged idea.) Generally speaking, we need to foster an environment where there is no advantage to being unco-operative, and so the incentive for negative activity is diminished. isaacl (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: - I've considered the merit (or lack therof) of binding editorial review "ARBCONTENT?". Various problems seem so likely to crop up. Firstly, "seek consensus" is a key part of the fourth pillar - which is already the one under issue. We've of course waived consensus before with ARBCOM. The problem is, we'd need quite a few editorial reviewers, even if used for the edge cases, - a dozen adjudicators wouldn't be enough. But there's no way the Community could be satisfied with single admins ruling on it. Beyond that, editors who rated their chances with it would lose much of the motivation to form consensus short of it (and many could play it well enough to hide that). Many feel that seeking consensus in editing, despite the inevitable imperfect consequences is Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk)
- The idea of "not being co-operative handicaps you" - it's interesting, in that it feels a really good way to go. The problem is, I suspect this might cause more cases of trying to (politely) provoke the other party until breaking Civil (a definition of being un-cooperative), thus risking being counter-productive. It could of course also be productive. In some ways, this is what DS does. Violently. I think this could work well with pages with 10+ editors discussing the issue. If there's an editor on each side handicapping the "moderates" (those willing to talk), then remove them from discussion. But with those with 2/3/4 in, it could be counterproductive. I also despise DS, viewing it as a necessary evil at best. So I'd like judgement involved than that. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- So many discussions end in "no consensus" precisely because using consensus doesn't scale up. I know there are editors who consider this inertial effect to be a feature, but it's also frustrating that change can be readily stonewalled by less-accommodating editors, while the more-accommodating ones work at finding a true compromise. Having a mandatory, binding mediation mechanism, for example, can be reflective of general community views and I think could, under the right circumstances, be accepted.
- The point I was making was not to remove unco-operative editors from discussions (though I'm not necessarily adverse to proposals along those lines), but that if there is no incentive to be unco-operative, the editing community won't evolve so there is an increasing percentage of unco-operative editors. If content disputes could be resolved more expeditiously, and with at least a temporary truce before being revisited, this would make it less likely that the only survivors in a dispute will be those who are less accommodating. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- You make some good points. In other threads, people often reference a lack of common standards of civility as a reason why enforcing civility on Wikipedia is so difficult. Maybe shifting that conversation towards positive expectations of effectively working in a collaborative environment would be a better approach. It's no secret that consensus processes are dominated by the loudest (and often the meanest) voices, and while there are no formal barriers to participation, editors who don't want to deal with people calling them and their ideas stupid are often tempted to find better things to do with their time. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Isaac has some great insights and great essays. One of the problems IMO is that Wikipedia does no real training of new editors. We never teach each other how to participate in discussions productively. I think it might benefit to have some how-to pages showing examples of constructive and nonconstrutive discussions, and outlining constructive and nonconstructive ways to turn disagreement into consensus. My concern about "arbcontent" is that you really need to either know the content, or learn the content, in order to adjudicate a content dispute. In some areas, WikiProjects might be able to provide a pool of knowledgable uninvolved editors, but I fear in a lot of areas, the two editors fighting about something will be the only two editors who know anything about that thing that they're fighting about. Hence, it may be more productive to teach everyone how to resolve disputes among themselves rather than creating a "content court" of any kind, which may never have enough judges in the right areas. – Levivich 02:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Four years ago I floated the idea of a reference page for sample editor interactions, but it got a lukewarm reception, and so I didn't pursue it. There are already a lot of good essays on becoming a more effective editor, though: see the "Essays on building, editing, and deleting content" section of Template:Wikipedia essays. But realizing that you can benefit from reading and learning from, say, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing § How to pull back from the brink requires a degree of self-awareness and introspection that is unfortunately absent from many unco-operative editors. Additionally, there has to be a will to resolve a dispute fairly in order for someone to voluntarily take advice on how to do it.
- There are certainly highly domain-specific topics in which some disputes would need a domain expert to resolve. (In the real world, as I understand it, mediators don't necessarily start out being familiar with the ins and outs of the problem domain, and may have to be educated by the involved parties.) But in many (most?) instances, what is needed is a weighing of the competing arguments in context of the applicable policies and procedures, plus an application of impartial editorial judgement. If we can start with addressing these cases, it'll be a useful step forward. isaacl (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: I basically agree with that assessment, but I would add that
in many (most?) instances, what is needed is a weighing of the competing arguments in context of the applicable policies and procedures, plus an application of impartial editorial judgement[, as opposed to] need[ing] a domain expert to resolve
is a very idealistic way of looking at it. I had a dispute with another area on the topic of "Nichiren Buddhist-based new religious movements" some years back, and most of the sources were written in English for a predominantly lay audience: anyone could have clicked on the sources, which were also available for free, to see that there was no "difference of interpretation" but rather one editor matching what the sources said and another editor twisting them to fit what he wanted to say (quite blatantly, to the point where a cited source gave one year for an event occurring and that editor's version of an article would give a completely different year). The problem is that on certain parts of the encyclopedia (namely ANI) very few editors who aren't already "involved" will actually bother to click on diffs, read sources, etc., and will rather !vote based on which of the editors they "like" or "don't like". (The aforementioned Nichiren Buddhism dispute was open-and-shut, and I was genuinely shocked at how difficult it was to get anyone to actually look at it -- even ArbCom ultimately ignored it and decided to TBAN the both of us, with only one or two editors pointing out on this page at the time what a mess they had made of the case by not looking at the content to realize that one of us was completely right and the other completely wrong.) This means that ultimately, while we may not need mediators who are already knowledgeable of this or that topic, we definitely do need mediators who are interested enough to click around and verify (or falsify) what the various parties to the dispute are saying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: I basically agree with that assessment, but I would add that
- This is a good point, and for me the big picture (not necessarily related to harassment) is that the bigger the set of individuums who are discussing a solution to a certain problem is, the more difficult is to find a consensus, and it is likely that the solution is not found. In the English Wikipedia, we have seen it many times. For example, we have a perennial problem of decreasing the number of active administrators, it has been universally accepted that this is because RfA is a broken process, or at least is perceived as a broken process, however, all attempts at the RFA reform end in no consensus. Presumable, the solution of the harassment problem, as far as it is shifted to the community, has good chances to end in no consensus. If a consensus decision can not be taken, an authority must step in and take a decision. We have pretty much one authority - ArbCom - which can take decisions which are related to user behavior but they are not authorized make policy decisions. Apparently, WMF decided they must take policy decisions in the areas which can be covered as ToU violations (and unfortunately in other areas as well, see for example the recent disaster with short descriptions). This is not good, since we must have policies which at the very least cover all possible situations of ToU violations, so that ArbCom must be able to deal with them, but this just does not happen. However, I do not know any solutions, since all the solutions must be approved by the community as policies and are likely to end up as no consensus instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter:, while there is something to that, it has the following bits. The WMF can amend the ToU (and interpret it) as they wish, meaning they don't have any clear jurisdiction. While en-wiki has ended in NC on Civil issues before, they've also ended up with Firm "Oppose"s. So that's not a non-covered area, it's a deliberately exempted aspect that is being controlled by the WMF. The WMF can want an unacceptably high requirement, and saying we'd need policies to match that is neither viable nor moral. One truly monstrous thing done was that the WMF stated that en-wiki was proving repeatedly unable to control issues...without going and stating which issues, with examples, and what they'd classify as control. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Whereas I agree with your assessment of the WMF activity, and whereas I was very clear during the incident what I think of Fram and how it should have been handled, I do think that, at the very least, certain aspects of Fram's activity on en.wiki in the past have been highly problematic, and if we had them clearly covered in the policies / had been able to implement these policies to correct these problematic aspects, there were probably no ToU violation case to talk about.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- True, but in two bright-line discussions on Civility I've participated in there were very clear-cut rejections. Editors are also against unclarified general rules - we have general (many would say vague) rules now, but it's much harder to trip over them. Do you have any thoughts short of a general solution that would raise the civility level requirements at least a bit "low-hanging fruit"? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Whereas I agree with your assessment of the WMF activity, and whereas I was very clear during the incident what I think of Fram and how it should have been handled, I do think that, at the very least, certain aspects of Fram's activity on en.wiki in the past have been highly problematic, and if we had them clearly covered in the policies / had been able to implement these policies to correct these problematic aspects, there were probably no ToU violation case to talk about.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- In the essay I linked to above on the issues with community consensus, I discussed the stalemate in trying to adopt new approaches by consensus, since consensus itself is broken in a large group. My previous thoughts are that it would take some kind of crisis which would motivate editors to essentially forego their veto on enacting change, motivate the WMF to enact broad change from above, or precipitate a large change in the editing population. Although the odds are against it, perhaps the current situation is that crisis. isaacl (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: The problem is that "civility" is really very much in the eye of the beholder, at least when it comes to thinks that aren't also blatant personal attacks or harassment. Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) has a pretty foul mouth, and has come under attack for it from several users who don't like him for other reasons; he's turned his rhetoric on me from time to time (sometimes in jest, sometimes when I deserved it, and probably also sometimes when I didn't deserve it) but I've never thought to request sanctions for him for being "uncivil", since I know he's not doing it for the purpose of causing offense. AGF basically forbids editors who don't already know that CT (or others who similarly use colourful language) isn't a WP:DICK from assuming that causing offense is his intent, which makes sanctioning editors for solely "uncivil" purposes extremely problematic -- editors who claim to be offended by foul language are usually either (a) engaging in deliberate deception to game the system (and we don't cede ground to those editors -- never again) or (b) being too sensitive about such issues, either because they take things too literally (yeah, I know that "fuck" and "suck" are both originally sexual in nature, and that the way they are used has its origins not only in sexual contexts but in a sexist gynophobic and homophobic worldview[11]) or because they are kids (and in either case we can't modify editor behaviour or the Wikipedia "culture" just for them). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've said nothing about civility in this section, nor made any suggestions that require distinguishing civil comments from others. As I mentioned above, can further discussion on determining civility be held in one of the many other sections that are already discussing this topic? isaacl (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm sorry, but you opened a subsection immediately below a discussion of civility, talking about encouraging collaborative behaviour and fostering a collaborative environment, and you also specifically mentioned community gridlock when it comes to "consensus", which is something that had been mentioned a bunch of times with regard to civility enforcement immediately above -- not only is it difficult not to read this as being about civility (and the enforcement thereof), but you certainly can't blame others for reading it in the most intuitive way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- To clarify: I say "fuck" an awful lot, but I don't call people "fucking twats" or whatever, which is clearly a violation; most Wikipedians recognize the difference, but a vocal minority would sanction every "fuck" regardless of how it's employed, and ignore an awful lot of truly incivil language and behaviour because it lacks a "fuck". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: You're not seriously telling me you believe there is a "vocal minority" who sincerely support sanctions for "fuck" but not genuine incivility, are you? I will admit I forgot one category in my above comment: (c) editors who sincerely think that all cursing and swearing should be forbidden, and either don't know or don't care if/when they find themselves making common cause with disruptive POV-pushers; but that group generally place other words (the C-word, for example) in the same boat as "fuck" so they can't be who you're talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I meant "fuck" as a stand-in for the Seven dirty words—no, I don't believe they're singling out "fuck" but giving a pass to other such words. And, yes, there are editors who believe all cuss words should be sanctioned—some of them are sincere, and others are trying to game the system. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: You're not seriously telling me you believe there is a "vocal minority" who sincerely support sanctions for "fuck" but not genuine incivility, are you? I will admit I forgot one category in my above comment: (c) editors who sincerely think that all cursing and swearing should be forbidden, and either don't know or don't care if/when they find themselves making common cause with disruptive POV-pushers; but that group generally place other words (the C-word, for example) in the same boat as "fuck" so they can't be who you're talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've said nothing about civility in this section, nor made any suggestions that require distinguishing civil comments from others. As I mentioned above, can further discussion on determining civility be held in one of the many other sections that are already discussing this topic? isaacl (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: The problem is that "civility" is really very much in the eye of the beholder, at least when it comes to thinks that aren't also blatant personal attacks or harassment. Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) has a pretty foul mouth, and has come under attack for it from several users who don't like him for other reasons; he's turned his rhetoric on me from time to time (sometimes in jest, sometimes when I deserved it, and probably also sometimes when I didn't deserve it) but I've never thought to request sanctions for him for being "uncivil", since I know he's not doing it for the purpose of causing offense. AGF basically forbids editors who don't already know that CT (or others who similarly use colourful language) isn't a WP:DICK from assuming that causing offense is his intent, which makes sanctioning editors for solely "uncivil" purposes extremely problematic -- editors who claim to be offended by foul language are usually either (a) engaging in deliberate deception to game the system (and we don't cede ground to those editors -- never again) or (b) being too sensitive about such issues, either because they take things too literally (yeah, I know that "fuck" and "suck" are both originally sexual in nature, and that the way they are used has its origins not only in sexual contexts but in a sexist gynophobic and homophobic worldview[11]) or because they are kids (and in either case we can't modify editor behaviour or the Wikipedia "culture" just for them). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter:, while there is something to that, it has the following bits. The WMF can amend the ToU (and interpret it) as they wish, meaning they don't have any clear jurisdiction. While en-wiki has ended in NC on Civil issues before, they've also ended up with Firm "Oppose"s. So that's not a non-covered area, it's a deliberately exempted aspect that is being controlled by the WMF. The WMF can want an unacceptably high requirement, and saying we'd need policies to match that is neither viable nor moral. One truly monstrous thing done was that the WMF stated that en-wiki was proving repeatedly unable to control issues...without going and stating which issues, with examples, and what they'd classify as control. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
edit request
Could someone post this at the WJB case request for me? Thanks.
Statement of 67.164.113.165
StudiesWorld writes, "I also think that the actions of Floq and Bish should be reviewed with an eye towards possible violations of WP:OFFICE and loss of community trust." Others have said similar things.
I want to say that my own trust in Floq, Bish, and WJBScribe increased after the unblocks/resysops that they did. They were elected to serve the encyclopedia rather than the WMF, and they stood for the encyclopedia with their WP:BOLD actions when there was a conflict between the encyclopedia and the WMF. Meanwhile, I have lost considerable trust in the WMF, and also in the various sycophants, enforcers, concern trolls, and nervous Neds/Nellies on-wiki who couldn't bear the idea of the community responding with actions rather than words to the WMF's own outrageous incursion.
We are dealing with a WMF at least part of which is NHBE and wants to run a mini-Facebook or clickbait publisher instead. I'm convinced that Floq, Bish, and WJBScribe's willingness to engage in Realpolitik strengthened the pro-encyclopedia position within the WMF. We owe them gratitude and heightened trust rather than sanctions and lower trust. The large collections of barnstars posted to their talk pages following the incidents, and the strong support they received at WP:FRAM and WP:AN (consider the heavy support for a proposal to literally block/ban the WMF office account), show that quite a lot of other editors feel the same way I do. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Done-gadfium 05:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)