Contents

User talk:BU Rob13: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:29, 30 June 2019

I just had a thought, Rob. Now, I haven't done any search at all of Fram's edits (or your edits), neither am I aware of your or Fram's editing areas, so this is just a wild thought. Have you ever reported Fram to WMF? A (truthful) denial will be sufficient. starship.paint (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, I urge you to withdraw this question as it is dangerous and also completely pointless. You will get one of five answers:

• A truthful yes, which ruins any confidentiality between someone who may have been a target and the perpetrator, and paints a target for future harassment;
• A truthful no, which sets the expectation of no confidentiality and adds heat to a witch-hunt for the reporter
• An untruthful yes, which leads you down the wrong path and paints a target on Rob's back for no reason
• An untruthful no, which again leads you down the wrong path and redirects a witch-hunt
• A refusal to answer or lack of answer, leading to assumptions about all of the above.

It's no-win, and this line of questioning must be avoided and stopped. The only person it benefits is the original abusive user. stwalkerster (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand your labels of "someone who may have been a target" "perpetrator", "reporter", and "original abusive user", Stwalkerster. Could you be clearer? For example, "Rob", "Fram", "supposed victim of Fram", "reporter of Fram to WMF". If you amend your message I will be able to understand it more clearly. starship.paint (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot understand Stwalkerster's original message, you're too stupid to be editing. Nick (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the parts of untruthful yes, untruthful no, and refusal. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect for the concerns raised about my question, I have struck it. starship.paint (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After Nick's latest explanation, I understand more about the ramifications of that question. I'm sorry for that, Rob. starship.paint (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Starship.paint: I appreciate the self-reflection. The answer is essentially Mu, in that the question should not be asked. I am extremely uncomfortable with the mob mentality taking hold of the community, resulting in attempts to find and crucify any victims of Fram who may have spoken up to the WMF. The community appears to be furious that they have been denied their "right" to further harass a victim who dared speak out. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I can only speak for myself, in this case, I was previously curious if it was you, just because of my stray thoughts. I'm not asking that any more. However, we (the community) have been asked (maybe even by you) to reflect on how to improve. It's hard to do that without knowing the exact offending behaviour. starship.paint (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The improvements that are needed are in reporting mechanisms. There are currently zero community-based reporting mechanisms that allow victims to come forward without fear of reprisal for on-wiki harassment. That's the problem. The specifics of this case are fairly irrelevant to that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Might I ask what is wrong with contacting ArbCom privately? starship.paint (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ArbCom currently does not hear private cases about on-wiki evidence, even in cases of harassment, and even where fear of reprisal is an issue. They kick it back on-wiki to a public case request. Further, they require prior dispute resolution attempts at ANI, so you can't even go to a public case request without throwing yourself to the wolves first. See my post here: [1]. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Rob. I have a better understanding of the situation now. starship.paint (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Over the years I recall issues cropping up that were discussed privately because of various concerns. Obviously the committee tried to be as open as possible as a default, I don't recall any blanket rule precluding situations such as these being private if justifiied...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  BU Rob13, i just mailed arbcom about on of such cases, because i don't want to throw myself to the wolves. But nothing will happen, you are right. Arbcom is broken, this community is broken, and worse it is heavily in denial because it think it is holier than holy. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have generally stayed away from the FRAM page because a) the volume of comments is overwhelming and b) because of the mob mentality you have commented about. I disagree strongly with the inept way WMF has handled this and the lack of decent response that has caused many admins, editors and a few bureaucrats to turn in their tools. But as I catch up and gradually read more comments about this mess, I am grateful for your comments defending the rights of harassment victims to be protected from further abuse.

I faced doxxing and hate messages off-wiki during the Gamergate crisis five years ago and if I hadn't been so secure in my profession and place in life, it would have been terribly frightening and intimidating. It was just dumb luck that I didn't make a very good target and the trolls moved on to harass other innocent people during that awful time. But the vulnerability of victims of harassment is real and painful and I'm grateful for you pointing out the shortcomings of our current way of responding to these crises. I wish you had stayed on the ArbCom because I think you could have helped usher in some real change but I can't second guess someone else's heartfelt decision to leave. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I could have made any additional meaningful changes from within ArbCom by the time I left. I was consistently outvoted when I favored an approach of taking decisive action to prevent little issues from becoming big issues. Every time, I would warn that a big issue was imminent if we failed to act, and in most cases, I was proven right with time. That didn't seem to move the needle any, though. At this point, I suspect change in ArbCom can come only at the ballot box. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In which cases did you feel this was the case (or just point me in the direction)? Curious as I wonder how I would have voted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, not much to point you to on-wiki. Most of the difficult situations over my term occurred privately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't vote differently in the FoFs and remedies? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not terribly so. Most cases during my term were cases involving clear abuse of tools. Those are not the types of situations this ArbCom is hesitant act on. Well, until now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BU Rob13,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome ifabsolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribetoThe Signpost.
Gohere to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You had a problem with Fram on an arbitration page. Why didn’t you just send a clerk to fix it and prevent further trouble. The clerk could have given Fram a 24 hour block (escalating as necessary)? I’m asking because I think you might have a good answer. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a 13-person Committee, generally, the arbitrator who is being attacked should not be the one directing a block to occur from the clerk team. I did request the clerk team to ensure my question was visible somewhere, but I went to the Committee with my more broad concerns about Fram's behavior on that case page and toward me generally. The optics of "Fram attacked a single arbitrator, who directed the clerks to block Fram without discussion with other arbs" are clearly far worse than "Fram attacked a single arbitrator, who raised a concern with the Committee as a whole. The Committee as a whole directed the clerks to block Fram". Of course, the latter requires that the Committee be willing to act... ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, can you post any diffs of such disruption by Fram so we can have a common understanding of which actions by Fram were disruptive. Thank you for any help you can provide. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs/details are available in the Signpost article and past public case requests. I am not willing to dig up other diffs, because I think they would turn the mob against those who may have commented anonymously in the Signpost article. A clear net negative, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

@Jehochman: I doubt that would have gone well. Such a block would probably be reversed immediately, and Rob dragged into the usual drama cycle and perhaps an ArbCom case ,rather than anyone learning any useful lessons. I still disagree with the WMF block of Fram, but IMHO equally it is now clear that institutional change of some sort is needed, it's not something that any well meaning individual admins can force on their own.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me when an ArbCom clerk block has been reversed? That would be grounds for immediate removal of admin access. And the drama would have been more than what we’ve had these last three weeks? Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it? One would have thought reversal of an office action would lead to immediate removal of admin access, but we have learned that is not so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Very very (if any) admins on WP would have had the mental bandwidth to block Fram and incur the consequences; I think many (if not most) editors on WP:FRAM would concur with that. Clearly, the status quo cannot continue in any event, and WMF have just too great a legal-financial-ethical responsibility here to ignore future complaints. It is possible, however, that with full alignment/partnership/oversight with ArbCom (done in confidence), that the WMF can (and will) play an important role here in the future to all our benefit. Senior admins and ArbCom members are volunteers too, and taking on the most difficult cases is not something many of them, understandably, should be expected to do as volunteers (i.e. they have a right to enjoy the place as well, something that I think we can forget when dealing with ArbCom/admins). Britishfinance (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom clerks have strong cover. If they are sent to stop disruption on an ArbCom page, they do what’s necessary and there’s no issue. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... no. In recent times, the clerks have been consistently attacked by the community when they attempted to stop disruption on ArbCom pages. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence, Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/archive_10#Giant_Snowman, User_talk:Legacypac/Archive_13#GiantSnowman_Arbcom_Case. I would actually be hesitant to allow the clerk team to make such a block at all instead of an arbitrator, since I would feel we were throwing them to the wolves. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	<3
	Heya - When so many Wikipedians who I otherwise respect are getting caught up in this hateful mob, your voice is consistently a voice of reason. Thank you. I sincerely appreciate it. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 14:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]