ArbCom's Anti-harassment RfC

[Giraffe Stapler]

The Arbitration Committee has started a poorly-named request for comment on investigating cases like the Fram case, It covers a lot of ground. Probably too much ground. No, definitely too much ground. Here are the subheadings:

• Private evidence
• Fear of retaliation
• Opportunity to respond to allegations
• Unsubstantiated complaints
• Plausible deniability
• Arbitration environment
• "Unblockables"
• Relationship with T&S

This will be a mess.

[Vigilant]

The Arbitration Committee has started a poorly-named request for comment on investigating cases like the Fram case, It covers a lot of ground. Probably too much ground. No, definitely too much ground. Here are the subheadings:

• Private evidence
• Fear of retaliation
• Opportunity to respond to allegations
• Unsubstantiated complaints
• Plausible deniability
• Arbitration environment
• "Unblockables"
• Relationship with T&S

This will be a mess.

Honestly, I'm impressed that they're doing this.

[Vigilant]

While I agree that a case-by-case approach is superior to formulating a rigid, absolute answer, we all need to be mindful that the specific case that eventually led to this RfC did not involve real life stalking. Rather, it was a matter of the WMF protecting their own from editorial scrutiny at the expense of a volunteer who was merely seeking to uphold encyclopedic standards. We are not a real court and there will probably be cases in which some evidence needs to be kept private in order to safeguard the well-being of victims, but recent precedent has shown that at least some authoritative bodies cannot be trusted to know when private evidence is not appropriate. Therefore, it may be necessary to establish specific rules that restrict the use of private evidence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The heart of the matter.

[Vigilant]

WO looked into the employees of Trust & Safety and found a culture of incompetence and corruption.

Nobody should ever trust them. Ever.

There's a need for the function that they theoretically provide, but this batch of idiots will never be able to fulfill that need and the department name is forever besmirched by their partisan witchhunt of Fram on behalf of Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari Huici.

The best course of action would be to fire all of T&S, reconstitute the function in a new, differently named team, and hire trained, experienced people from other social media companies.

The flotsam and detritus that currently infest T&S aren't fit for purpose.

[Poetlister]

At the end of the day, this is all pointless. If the WMF wants to do something, the "community" on Wikipedia can make as much noise as they like, but the WMF can overrule them. At most, Arbcom can resign en bloc. The WMF then invites Fred Bauder and a few other people who would jump at the chance to be arbs.

[el84]

They could've waited 4 more days and launched it one year to the day that Fram got banned.

[Poetlister]

They could've waited 4 more days and launched it one year to the day that Fram got banned.

I expect that ws a deliberate decision on the timing. They probably didn't want to have people clamouring for it before they launched it.

[Vigilant]

At the end of the day, this is all pointless. If the WMF wants to do something, the "community" on Wikipedia can make as much noise as they like, but the WMF can overrule them. At most, Arbcom can resign en bloc. The WMF then invites Fred Bauder and a few other people who would jump at the chance to be arbs.

Is there some sort of sexual gratification you get from being this wrong all the fucking time?

The one thing that the WMF is violently allergic to is bad press.

If the ARBCOM resigned en masse to protest something, like they really should have for Fram, and it hit the mainstream press, the WMF would backpedal fast enough to win the Tour de France.

[el84]

They could've waited 4 more days and launched it one year to the day that Fram got banned.

I expect that ws a deliberate decision on the timing. They probably didn't want to have people clamouring for it before they launched it.

Bradv responded to Banedon querying about it two days ago. Looking at the history of the page, it seems to have done the usual Arbcom thing of being forgotten about until reminded.

I say it was a missed opportunity.

[Bezdomni]

[...]

This will be a mess.

Honestly, I'm impressed that they're doing this.

(from Icewhiz (#5) to Cirt (#4), from Fram to various others... this is likely to be most fog-filled as folks skirt around mentioning which volunteer they're actually talking about... speaking of volunteers, where's Marek? )

[Vigilant]

Tryptofish, yeah, I don’t think many of us, myself included would want to be a second ArbCom. I was just saying clarify WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE in regards to some of the more straightforward cases for CU/OS. How strictly BLOCKEVIDENCE is read/enforced changes from year to year based on the views of the sitting ArbCom (see my link above re: UPE/COI) and even outside of CU/OS in some cases seeing admins say stuff like “I’ve seen this email user sent from the Wikipedia email function that led to this block, I’ll forward it to any other admin” isn’t exceptionally rare.

As an example JC7V7DC5768 is User:Jaredgk2008. I think that was figured out via emails and reddit messages obsessing over shoes (weird tick of that sockmaster) that was emailed to the functionaries list as well as some geolocation stuff and a bit of on-wiki behaviour comparison. The weird reddit and email stuff was what made the link though. There was back and forth on how to handle a block even though everyone involved in the discussion agreed it was him because of the BLOCKEVIDENCE bit. Eventually it was done as an ArbCom block, but from a practical perspective it really didn’t matter if it was an ArbCom block, CU block, or regular admin “appeal reserved to ArbCom block.” Stuff like email or other types of non-diffable harassment by known LTAs is something the CU/OS team can handle fairly easily. It’s different than something like a long-term user making a Twitter to harass people he considers his enemies and having to rely on judgement as to if it’s the right person. I don’t think anyone who isn’t an arb wants that role. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be fairly obvious self reported evidence of an off-wiki investigation that is formally forbidden due to the extremely high rate of false positives, confirmation bias contaminated results and potentially grievous privacy violations?

Especially since that username leads directly to a real life person's information?

Did they learn nothing from the !! (T-C-L) debacle and Jehochmann's interminable Supar Sekrit Sleuthing Squad?

[Vigilant]

The answer is in the question itself: legitimate criticisms. If someone is legitimately criticizing something which you are doing wrong, the solution is to start doing it right, not to complain that you keep getting caught or seek sanctions against the one who does so. The solution is to tell the complainant both that criticism is par for the course when one participates in a collaborative endeavor and that a thick enough skin to hear it is necessary, and that if you want to stop getting legitimate criticism about something you actually shouldn't be doing, stop doing that! Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is at the core of the Fram vs Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici case.

The deep corruption of the WMF came when they tried to cover it up and fuck Fram with his pants on.

[Vigilant]

I've recently started to warm to the idea of more active involvement by T&S, which is something that I'm surprised to hear myself say, because I sure did not think that way circa Framgate. I think T&S are correct that en-wiki has become ineffective at dealing with "toxic" behavior. Make a clear-cut personal attack, a la calling someone something that is vulgar, and we usually deal with it. But engage in prolonged dismissiveness, and both ArbCom and the community have become too accepting of that. Looking at the long back-and-forth sections of ANI where nothing gets resolved but a lot of angry words get said, it's reasonable to ask whether there is an institutional failure going on. Not that I believe T&S to be competent to fix that sort of thing on big, established wikis. But I'm in favor of a sort of collaborative approach between ArbCom and T&S. ArbCom should have jurisdiction here for anything that does not have to go to WMF legal, and T&S should back off. But T&S can still give advice to which ArbCom should listen. I'd like ArbCom to consider the kinds of "toxic, incivil" conduct that T&S talks about, and take it more seriously. The old essay at User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism is actually more timely than ever. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's an extremely dumb answer.

DemiUrge1000 is a classic example of T&S failure.
He'd been reported for YEARS with clear evidence of child grooming on en.wp and they did literally nothing. FOR YEARS!

T&S needs to be disbanded and rebuilt with all new people hired from the ranks of actually experienced professional community managers. Every single employee of T&S needs to be cashiered.

[charliemouse]

The "unblockable" comments are pretty good, but that just underlines the futility of this RfC. The unblockables will block any effort to effectuate change.

For example: Let's say there's a consensus around Piotrus' suggestion that administrators be subject to term limits. That's the elephant in the room. Admins are clearly unblockable. Everyone knows that. But the possibility of that reform ever being carried out would be blocked by the unblockables (the administrators), using "unblockable tactics."

[Vigilant]

The "unblockable" comments are pretty good, but that just underlines the futility of this RfC. The unblockables will block any effort to effectuate change.

For example: Let's say there's a consensus around Piotrus' suggestion that administrators be subject to term limits. That's the elephant in the room. Admins are clearly unblockable. Everyone knows that. But the possibility of that reform ever being carried out would be blocked by the unblockables (the administrators), using "unblockable tactics."

That's actually one of the simpler methods to get something concrete done.
It might also turn RfA into less of a bloodsport.

[Vigilant]

I disagree. Whether Wikipedia likes it or not, and whether or not it's acknowledged officially, Wikipedia is a meritocracy -- a project such as this could hardly be anything else and succeed. Because it is a meritocracy, evaluations of behavioral problems need to be made in conjunction with evaluations of the editors' worth to the project, that's just simple good sense. Having a zero-tolerance policy is almost always a bad idea, since it shifts responsibility for thinking up the food chain to an authoritarian figure farther removed from the front lines. This is why I have an almost-zero-tolerance for zero-tolerance policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's just flatly not true.

Wikipedia is a social club for people who aren't good enough to get paid to write in the real world.

In order for their to be a functioning meritocracy, in the original sense of the word, you need an objective evaluation of the work each person performs.

That's NOT what goes on on wikipedia.

* Edit count is meaningless but used as a measure of the fitness of an editor at RfA and, if we're being honest, at all of the drama boards.

* FA/GA/DYK/Barnstars are inherently subjective and awarded by others in the 'don't write well enough to get paid doing it' clique. There's not a separate, professional, independent group of actual editors (this is what BMK is arguing against in the second bolded section) who go over authors' works to measure quality. It's all circle jerking all the way down.

* The various permission 'bits' are also awarded for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with a meritocracy. Almost always, these are awarded in response to social networking. How long you were in IRC. How many times you showed up at AfD and voted the 'right way'. How often you showed up on a 'veteran editor's talk page and slobbered over how good they are. How many times you went wikimania and other useless, expensive summer camps for shutins.

* Finally, how big a band of other miscreants masquerading as 'editors' did you accumulate in your very own version of the Apple Dumpling Gang. Very RPG like. How sure are you that your minions/compatriots will show up on a moment's notice and fight for the 'right side' determines just how much 'merit' your articles and edits will have.

In fact, wikipedia is largely a sycophantocracy, running on the tears, rage and fevers dreams of social misfits who can't write but really want to be known for writing.

[Vigilant]

T&S staff members have no place on ENWP and should be banned from any involvement in any aspect of its administration or interaction with its editors or Arbcom. The WMF culture of gravy-train activism are completely at odds with ENWPs culture. The current T&S team contains a number of individuals who have repeatedly shown they lack judgement even in the area in which they are supposedly employed (check their CV's and do some online digging into their past employment if you want the gory details). WMF staff members have a basic conflict of interest in that their personal employment is dependant on doing what their bosses say, regardless of the actual facts in the case. We have seen how that pans out with how they jump when WMF insiders make spurious complaints about ENWP editors justifiably criticising them. There should be no co-operation with the T&S team until they are completely replaced. And we need to elect arbitors who have a spine to stand up to the WMF rather than rolling over and showing their belly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadly for en.wp, that ship has sailed.
They largely capitulated to the WMF in the Fram case.

Fram was absolutely correct on the facts that Laura Hale was a terrible (and paid) editor and needed constant vigilance (HA!) to keep her from shitting up the wiki with her terribly broken articles that she only wrote to satisfy her contract with the Australian government.

T&S got spanked, but they won the war.

Who will stand against them if Fram could be taken down with complicit help from ARBCOM?

You spineless weenies on en.wp got what you deserved when you allowed this to happen.
Get ready to receive more of the same treatment.
You've shown the WMF how they are allowed to treat you.

The new Universal Code of Conduct is coming for you like the Spanish Inquisition.

[Vigilant]

Arbs/clerks: Is there really a need for those gratuitous personal attacks? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Right on time, the quisling shows up to stifle all mentions of things that are unpleasant for the WMF to hear.

Also, how is there a personal attack when ARBCOM is mentioned as a body?

[Osborne]

So far only 33 editors have commented (stats). Administrators well represented and quite a few anti-WMFers and pro-WMFers. Some of the names don't strike me as people who would care about reducing harassment. This RfC is a good experiment, but probably has nothing to do with addressing harassment.

[Vigilant]

Dont want to be called out for denying a person their basic rights under natural justice? Dont take actions that require challenging. Fram was denied the basic rights that murderers and child molesters are accorded when evidence is submitted against them. Arbcoms decision to refuse to show Fram the evidence against him in full, its refusal to name his accusers to him, was a disgusting and despicable act of cowardice and a blatant abuse of basic fairness. You call that a personal attack? As long as you take actions that are unethical and immoral dont complain if people take exception to them. Dont complain in an RFC that is meant to address the sitation, those actions are called out for what they are. Wikipedia is neither a criminal nor a civil court, so there is absolutely no excuse for using procedures that deny the accused the chance for a proper rebuttal that are only used in cases of terrorism to protect intelligence assets. Gratuitous? I could write 3000 words without blinking on the necessity of challenging the methods used in the Fram case, why it needs to be publically aired, and that everyone involved should be ashamed for enabling such despicable actions. The above is the *minimum* I can state without using profanities, or my true thoughts on ther individuals involved in it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

PREACH!

[Vigilant]

I no longer trust Arbcom to fairly judge evidence that the subject of the complaint is not given an opportunity to rebut. There have been too many cases of bias among arbs. But the WMF is worse. We need to be able to trust Arbcom, which means arbs setting aside friendships and keeping each other fair, and ideally, I'd like to see a way to impeach Arbcom; the need for it was horribly apparent during the Fram case. The subject of the complaint should be given all possible access to specifics on the evidence behind the accusation. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.

Will ARBCOM actually take any of this on board?

I doubt it.

[Poetlister]

The "unblockable" comments are pretty good, but that just underlines the futility of this RfC. The unblockables will block any effort to effectuate change.

For example: Let's say there's a consensus around Piotrus' suggestion that administrators be subject to term limits. That's the elephant in the room. Admins are clearly unblockable. Everyone knows that. But the possibility of that reform ever being carried out would be blocked by the unblockables (the administrators), using "unblockable tactics."

Indeed, it's almost a truism that those in power will oppose anything that weakens their power. That's why Wikipedia is where it is. There is no benevolent dictator to force necessary changes on the unwilling elite. Conceivably, Jimbo could have done it in the early days, but he didn't realise what was necessary. It's far too late now.

[Vigilant]

I support Only in death on this with the exception of the research into T & S staff, which I am unprepared to check for its validity and therefore do not use as part of my argument. The WMF are not our bosses, but paid editors of a particularly inept kind with a declared policy of forcing bias into the encyclopedia (the rationale behind their new global behavioral guidelines). T & S have mismanaged the one task for which their existence is justifiable, dealing with report-mandated illegalities such as pedophilia, and in the Fram case showed contempt for the community and perpetrated a serious injustice. The WMF deserves nothing but our scorn and any collaboration with them, especially with T & S, is reprehensible. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I know it's only June, but I'm casting my Straight Shooter award vote right now.

[Vigilant]

Those who followed the in-depth research regarding last year's debacle are aware that T&S was utilized as a tool to silence one of our volunteers who had justifiably criticized the content work of an editor that had WMF ties. That's what happened, even if nobody will ever publicly admit it. As you can imagine, those of us who are aware of the details have zero trust in the individuals responsible for what happened. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone trying for the runner up position.

[Vigilant]

How about, "If you can't do it with public information, then don't fucking do it..."?


Have some fucking self-respect, you twats.

[Moral Hazard]

I support Only in death (T-C-L) on this with the exception of the research into T & S [Trust and Safety] staff, which I am unprepared to check for its validity and therefore do not use as part of my argument. The WMF are not our bosses, but paid editors of a particularly inept kind with a declared policy of forcing bias into the encyclopedia (the rationale behind their new global behavioral guidelines).

T & S have mismanaged the one task for which their existence is justifiable, dealing with report-mandated illegalities such as pedophilia, and in the Fram (T-C-L) case showed contempt for the community and perpetrated a serious injustice.

The WMF deserves nothing but our scorn and any collaboration with them, especially with T & S, is reprehensible.

Yngvadottir (T-C-L) (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I know it's only June, but I'm casting my Straight Shooter award vote right now.

This is worth sharing on Wikipedia talk pages etc.

[charliemouse]

I'm surprised no one in this RfC has made any reference to the Jytdog arbcom. He is an example of unblockable.

[Bezdomni]

I'm surprised no one in this RfC has made any reference to the Jytdog arbcom. He is an example of unblockable.

Well, not on the page as such, but he is mentioned on the RfC announcement page.

Don't scroll up, someone seems to have laid an egg just above that mention.

[Zoloft]

I support Only in death (T-C-L) on this with the exception of the research into T & S [Trust and Safety] staff, which I am unprepared to check for its validity and therefore do not use as part of my argument. The WMF are not our bosses, but paid editors of a particularly inept kind with a declared policy of forcing bias into the encyclopedia (the rationale behind their new global behavioral guidelines).

T & S have mismanaged the one task for which their existence is justifiable, dealing with report-mandated illegalities such as pedophilia, and in the Fram (T-C-L) case showed contempt for the community and perpetrated a serious injustice.

The WMF deserves nothing but our scorn and any collaboration with them, especially with T & S, is reprehensible.

Yngvadottir (T-C-L) (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I know it's only June, but I'm casting my Straight Shooter award vote right now.

This is worth sharing on Wikipedia talk pages etc.

[Randy from Boise]

I took the liberty of barnstarring the daughter of Yngva on Vig's behalf.

RfB

[Poetlister]

I took the liberty of barnstarring the daughter of Yngva on Vig's behalf.

RfB

That was very well deserved.

[Moral Hazard]

She is great!