This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bots Newsletter, March 2018
Greetings!
Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.
While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up.
The edit summary limit has been increased to 1000 characters (see T6715). If a bot you operate relied on the old truncation limit (255 characters), please review/update your code, as overly long summaries can be disruptive/annoying. If you want to use extra characters to have more information in your edit summary, please do so intelligently.
You will soon be able to ping users from the edit summary (see T188469). If you wish to use this feature in your bot, please do so intelligently.
(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Lourdes
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Somewhat surprised at your surprise over Lourdes' temperament/dressing down of Acalamari since you !voted in her first RFA where the exact same temperament issues were raised. Surprised to see she passed #2 with flying colors, yet not at all surprised that the same behavior is present. Somewhat hoping she doesn't come back to reclaim her bit, since I don't see this ending well. StarM03:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
opt in and out
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I see that well over 100 people had privacy concerns but the end result was to eliminate privacy (about 170 or so votes) and some other votes in other categories.
Independently, and without knowing of the 2014 results, I raised a very similar question to RickinBaltimore because he is an AC member and I didn't know who to ask. He suggested VPP. Someone writing in VPP supplied the above link.
Often with privacy, we err on the side of more privacy so consideration should be given to those 100+ people. How can we have a less private English Wikipedia and a more private other than English Wikipedia?
I view this issue as privacy being important even though you could think of an excuse for less privacy. For example, when you are in a public street, you give up privacy. People can tabulate when you leave your house. However, I am confident that people would consider it an invasion of privacy if a sign were posted in front of your home/flat showing the times that you leave the house and come back, along with the days of the week. This is exactly what English Wikipedia does. True, someone could tabulate what time and dates you edit but there is a linked tool that shows exactly how often you edit on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc. and what time you edit during those days.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bots Newsletter, August 2018
Greetings!
Here is the 6th issue of the Bots Newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.
Highlights for this newsletter include:
ARBCOM
Nothing particular important happened. Those who care already know, those who don't know wouldn't care. The curious can dig ARBCOM archives themselves.
BAG
There were no changes in BAG membership since the last Bots Newsletter. Headbomb went from semi-active to active.
In the last 3 months, only 3 BAG members have closed requests - help is needed with the backlog.
{{Automated tools}}, a new template linking to user-activated tools and scripts has been created. It can be used in articles previews, and can be placed on any non-mainspace page/template (e.g. {{Draft article}}) to provide convenient links to editors.
AWB 5.10.0.0 is out, after nearly 20 months without updates. If you run an old version, you will be prompted to install the new version automatically. See the changelog for what's new. Note that the next version will require .NET Framework 4.5. Many thanks to Reedy and the AWB team.
BotWatch, "a listing of editors that have made >2 edits per minute [without] a bot flag", is being developed by SQL (see discussion).
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am unsure of the reasoning to revert my changes to the Castaibert page. First, obviously if I could have created the page, I would have; however my information is lacking. Second, red-linking is a accepted and necessary means of promoting article growth. Finally, he should be referred to his actual name in his language as opposed to the anglicized name Paul. I have been editing less than normal for a while so forgive my possible lack of changes. - speednat (talk)
The reason is that the page is a redirect, not an article. Although we include red links in articles to promote creation of missing content, we do not redirect pages to non-existent pages, because this hinders navigation. You will see that redirecting pages to pages that do not exist is given as an example under "Avoiding creation of certain types of red links" at WP:REDNO. Until an article about the person is created, the redirect to the page about the aircraft looks valid. WJBscribe(talk)13:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry, I am a little out of practice. But I see that the link to Pablo is still red which is what I felt was needed. If I had the necessary books or info I would add the page but I seem to be hitting empty on all 4000 of my books. - speednat (talk)
Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
Hi WJB, thanks for your last post at AE - I hope you won’t mind me coming here, as it strikes me another back and forth there would be off topic. We have each said everything relevant there I think. I am here simply to answer your implicit question as to why I reacted so strongly, even though I know that it was never going to be helpful to my case to do so.
You wrote: “I expressed sympathy for your appeal, said that what gave me pause were words you had recently written and in response I have been accused of acting outrageously, misrepresenting you and casting aspersions. All for daring to react to your own words.”
My strength of feeling was actually due to your two statements: “that comment makes it clear to me that Onceinawhile would benefit from...” and “battleground mindsets“.
These statements are very personal in nature - you made a comment on the content and then extrapolated to comments on the contributor. You made the comments in good faith and in order to support a relevant discussion, so I don’t object per se the fact that they were personal, I just expect to see a MUCH higher standard of care being taken when comments are made on editors “mindsets” or similar. Perhaps you did apply such a standard, but you haven’t mentioned it yet.
I don't mind at all. That said, I'm not sure why you came here - to resolve or continue conflict? I ask because you have complained at WP:AE that I quoted you out of context, something that I don't agree with but is always a risk when not including all of a comment. However, we are all constrained in space and I have no objection to you shortening two of my statements above. But please note how you have quoted my second statement and the lack of ellipses (which you used when quoting the first statement) even though it is a quotation of part of a sentence. What I said was "I don’t think WW1 anniversaries excuse expressions of battleground mindsets..." (my emphasis). The way you have quoted me above makes it appear that I made a comment about your mindset, rather than about how you expressed yourself. I didn't. It's the difference between saying someone was angry and that they sounded angry. And it is important here because the rest of your comment focuses on whether it was appropriate for me to comment on your mindset, which actually I didn't. You even deliberately linked the word personal to "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" (by which I assume you mean to suggest a breach of that policy). But I doubt there are many who would find a personal attack there. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. I do appreciate you stopping by to clarify your position, but I'm not sure we're going to make a lot of progress if we continue like this. WJBscribe(talk)19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
That’s fair enough.
I came here simply to explain and try to clean up misunderstandings. Communicating solely in written form is always a challenge because without tone and body language it is hard to communicate feelings. I don’t see any benefit to conflict between us; I simply hoped it may be possible to develop some mutual respect. My post(s) here are intended to be read in a conciliatory manner.
For the record, the point about “expressions of” is why I used the term “casting aspersions” at the AE. Perhaps I used the wrong term? It seemed to me that the “expressions of” precursor had little meaning, because the way you built to your conclusion implied to the community that you absolutely considered that I must actually have such a mentality. The same is true for the “benefit from” statement. In both cases I accept that you did not fill in all the gaps in writing, but working back from your conclusion, I can’t see any other logical interpretation of what you meant.
Either way, I accept your point about the parallels between our quoting of each other.
On your second point, I don’t think you breached policy, for the reason I said - the context of your comment, the AE review, requires an assessment of the contributor, and you made yours in good faith. But I absolutely consider it an insult to be accused of having a battleground mindset, even if the accusation was made indirectly or by implication.
None of which goes to the actual point that I feel strongly about, which I will not repeat.
PS – I just found the time to look up the meaning of “casting aspersions”. I see it has a much simpler and slightly different meaning (“making negative statements or accusations”) than I had always understood. Until now, I have incorrectly used it to mean a more negative form of “casting doubt”. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. From a purely semantic point of view, why do you think that policy uses the term “casting aspersions” rather than the simpler “personal attacks”. Is there a nuance in there? Pinging @Wbm1058: who created the page in case they can shed any light. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) One can cast aspersions unintentionally, but something is only an attack if it's done with the intent to damage. When decisions written in Bradspeak make the distinction between the two, they're distinguishing between whether the comment itself was the problem (aspersions), or the attitude of the person making the comment was the problem (attacks). It's an apparently minor point, but it can be a significant one. ‑ Iridescent09:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I started this page three years ago (around the time of an ArbCom election) because it was redirecting to one specific case, and I didn't think that was right. So I found several cases also stating the principle and made it a general overview, for the purpose of explaining this oft-misunderstood term. Iridescent's comment is insightful; I'm not a close-enough follower of ArbCom proceedings to have noticed that. I pay the most attention to ArbCom at this time of year, then most of the rest of the year I'm usually focused on gnoming mainspace. I've thought about reviewing the archive of ArbCom decisions to make more pages like Wikipedia:Casting aspersions that show Committee "principles", but to date that's the only one I've done. wbm1058 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, WJBscribe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Talk page watcher dropping in to make a quick comment. @Chubbles:, I'd urge you to search for and include more independent references for that article, so that it is obvious the subject not just meets, but really exceeds, minimal notability standards for musicians. There is an excellent reason why that article title is "salted" (the original subject was *not* the musician you are writing about), and it is on the watchlist of a few hundred longtime editors, so any new article creation should be rock-solid. I'm pretty hardline on notability, so I'd suggest you get the opinion of several other editors before proceeding to move this to mainspace.
WJBscribe, apologies for jumping in early. I'd suggest that if you do decide to un-salt, you leave the deleted revisions deleted. I can provide more details as to why if you need them, but I suspect you can figure it out by yourself. Risker (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Chubbles: and thanks @Risker:. As Risker says, there are good reasons why the article is currently protected against recreation, but the old article was not about the musician. The deleted revisions would stay deleted, but the page could be unprotected to allow recreation. I actually think it is an excellent idea to have an article about someone else with that name. Notability of musicians is not a topic about which I claim any expertise, but Risker is probably correct that some extra eyes would be a good idea on this special case. Aside from anything else, I am reluctant to risk the page being edited to change it from being about the musician to being about the subject of the deleted article after it is unprotected. Perhaps it is worth posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music if that WikiProject is active? If a consensus is in favour of your article being created, I would be happy to unprotect the page. WJBscribe(talk)17:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I occasionally weigh in at WikiProject Music, and can take it there if you think it decreases the chances of an ugly AfD from people uninterested in the scope of our coverage in music. I've also left comments at RPP - ultimately, I want the solution that results in this article going live (somewhere) with the least amount of drama for myself and any involved admins. Chubbles (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi WJBScribe - just to let you know that I completed the page moves very early today (well, technically, late last night my time), and that Chubbles' draft article is now moved to mainspace at the most appropriate article title, Daniel Brandt. Took me a bit longer than I expected - finding archived talk pages was a bit bizarre, and all of the pages were really big. I am probably responsible for the death of a server kitty or two. But it's done. Another weird chapter in Wikipedia history. Risker (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If you link me to the discussion I’ll take a look and reconsider. The discussion I participated in, which you closed, doesn’t appear to have included consideration of longer term semi protection and I can’t see a more recent discussion at RfPP. Given the particular sensitivities in this individual case, it would take lot to convince me that preemptive protection was unwarranted. WJBscribe(talk)20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
That's the one. To remind you: "change Daniel Brandt into a dab - probably not too big a deal. Time would tell if Daniel Brandt (musician) would also need some form of protection." Nobody dissented with that proposal, only the name of the page changed from Daniel Brandt (musician) to Daniel Brandt. So we have discussed it, and you were part of that discussion. Pre-emptive protection is not covered by policy - policy explicitly states that semi, PC and ECP should not be applied pre-emptively, and that doing so is "contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia". I strongly believe that normal users should be given the opportunity to edit this page until (and unless!) this proves infeasible. And perhaps we may discover along the way that some of our fears will evaporate. Samsara07:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. Protection was suggested in the discussion as a potential outcome for a different title and no one objected? I don't see how this can be described as "consensus was not to protect" this title. There was either no consensus or a tacit consensus that protection may prove needed (on the basis of a proposal that met with no resistance). I'm familiar with the general policy against pre-emptive protection, but I don't agree that this is pre-emptive. An article of this name has been the subject of sustained problematic editing and the protection is justified on that basis. The move protection is in effect just a continuation of my salting of the page post deletion, designed to prevent recreation of the article about the former subject. The semi protection is intended to reduce the chance casual reinsertion of material about the former subject, or a wholesale rewriting of the article. The protection is not speculative, it reflects my assessment of the particular risks posed by this article in the context of its wider history. In response to your point, leaving the page unprotected has already proved infeasible. The fact that the page history of problematic editing has been deleted, moved and oversighted does not mean that it should be disregarded when considering appropriate steps to protect the subjects of BLPs (and/or, for that matter, Wikipedians). WJBscribe(talk)16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Looking at this RevDel action of yours, I don't see any reason this needs to be redacted. Please note, that according to WP:REVDEL#Log redaction, it should not be used merely to cover your won mistakes; and the accusation you made (vandalism to our web site), especially given its immediate redaction, doesn't justify redaction. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu10:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, this should be undone. I believe your intent was not to hide your action but to spare the user an otherwise spotless block log, but that is not justification for hiding the entry. An apologetic unblock entry, an apology to the user, and a self-trout are sufficient. ~ Amory(u • t • c)12:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi both. Old Mishenu, I think the accusation that I used the tool to “cover your won mistakes” (sic) was an unnecessary accusation of bad faith on your part. Both my message to the user concerned and my entry in the log plainly demonstrated that isn’t the case. Amory is closer to the money but the reason for my use of the tool is recorded in the log, “potentially libellous/defamatory”. The rev deleted entry amounted to an accusation that the user concerned had vandalised Wikipedia in a manner that called for a block. That is untrue, and therefore defamatory of the user concerned. I stand by the rev deletion, but do not feel sufficiently strongly about it to want to get into a long argument. If either of you feel strongly enough about the issue that you wish to reverse my action, I will not object. WJBscribe(talk)11:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I certainly had no intention of turning this into a big thing! I've gone and undone the revdel, though, basically per everything said here. ~ Amory(u • t • c)17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Without speculating on the motivation, this seems to fall easily in the 'ordinary manner' condition of when not to RevDel logs described in the policy. The rapid retraction in the next log alleviates the first action sufficiently. — xaosfluxTalk16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
G'day,fellow admin Avi
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In order for it to be removable as “potentially libellous/defamatory”, it must be an accusation which a reasonable viewer may believe to be true. A block of an account for on-site activity, followed by an immediate unblock for a reason which clearly indicates the block in question was applied to the wrong user, is clearly not an accusation to be believed. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu13:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This will either make, or ruin, your day
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wow,that was a tremendous relief: I succeeding in making my personally-conventional two-Non-breaking-space, single vanilla-blank indent at the beginning of a 'graph, --- Note: By request from Jerzy, I am interrupting this conversation. I am his wife. (My full name is Gini Kramer. My contact information is as follows: <redacted> )For the moment, I am typing his dictation. The following paragraphs are Jerzy's dictation.
So, Jerzy is my Wikipedia ID. I am an administrator. I've been an administrator since 2003, 2004 or 2005. At the instigation of user:angela and now I'm 72 and a half and getting pretty daffy. But still understand what my responsibilities as an administrator are. I doubt that I am going to abuse my permissions but I also doubt that it's worth my leaving that possibility open. So probably the first thing worth discussing is downgrading my status at least one level. I'd like to continue editing; it wouldn't hurt to have someone at least occasionally reviewing my edits to see that I haven't done anything unusually stupid, taking into account how routine it is for editors to do something stupid and our ability to bounce back from such occasions. The reason I thought a bureaucrat might be a useful status from the person I appealed for help from is that I'm pretty sure a bureaucrat could do the downgrading of my permissions, and also facilitate the recovery or changing of my password which briefly I thought I had rediscovered but to no avail. I've been logged in with my administrator privilege for longer than I remember; I have the feeling that it used to be necessary to "refresh" it annually, but I suspect it's been over a year and maybe several since I did so. So I conjecture that rule changed. But I'm kind of stuck with an iPad2 that's been dropped, logged in with my admin status in effect. My hard drive on my real computer having probably been recycled though our internet provider is still providing service to our wifi and the wikipedia server understands that my account is in fact the Jerzy account. I went to a library a month or so ago and did some work, and chatted with some kind of live wikipedia helper who instructed me on upgrading my security level on my account. I printed out the procedure at the library and have those instructions somewhere close at hand (though I've forgotten where) and did not act on that recommendation. I've got plenty of projects I'd like to continue on, at least as an editor, even though I don't think I would trust myself as an admin too much longer. The iPad2 is a F'g PITA, and I'm going to need a password reset which perhaps should be executed by you, if that conforms to policy.
The last thing I want to do is stop editing. But the admin powers are probably pointless as a needless risk -- though I'd love to be designated as as "administrator emeritus." I'm not sure what medium I'm going to use from now on but there's no great rush to settle that. Libraries are one possibility; at the moment buying a computer that I can edit comfortably on sounds to me like the sort of ridiculous extravagance my wife would lavish on me if I would let her. But not a socially and ethically and politically acceptable choice in my mind. (We'll have to argue that out for ourselves.)
Maybe the crucial question is: is your lowering my privileges at least to vanilla-registered editor and notifying my wife, Gini Kramer, of my new password an appropriate course of action at this point?
Thanks for reading this tome. I look forward to your response.
No worries. Sorry to hear about your password difficulties. Unfortunately, I can’t help with password recovery/reset. You need to contact trustandsafety@wikimedia.org by email and they should be able to help you. I can remove your administrator rights if that is still what you would like, but let’s get your account issues sorted first and see how you feel after that. Best, WJBscribe(talk)13:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know if you think I'm avoiding the question, but I'm all for transparency. If I'd have opined in the chat, I would have said that I would have closed the RfA as no consensus. That said, I have no problem with Maxim opening a Crat chat. My opinion was contrary to the clear consensus of the Crats, which is also fine. I've been on the minority side in Crat chats before. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I think my point is just that I would have valued more you expressing that view (and understanding your reasoning for it) than I did the "close" of the discussion. You never know, your views may have swayed the outcome... WJBscribe(talk)13:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
I won't leave a semi-flippant Spartacus-themed note here, like I did for Bish, because I don't think you did this for Spartacus-type reasons. I think you did it because you simply believe it was the right thing to do. An honourable thing to do, and putting much more than I did on the line. A pleasure to share the website with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And it is my honor to be here as well--with you, Floq, and with you, WJBScribe. And Bish, and a bunch of others including NihonJoe. I love all of you old-timers. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
What was the point of wrestling Jimbo for self-governance only to lose it to "WMF Trust and Safety", whoever they are... Btw, who came up with such an Orwellian name? WJBscribe(talk)00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
We've never met, as far as I know, but your name now, for me, will be one that I hold in respect and will be synonymous with fairness, integrity, and courage. Thank you. CassiantoTalk14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, as well as your firm commitment to accountability, thank you, WJBscribe. starship.paint (talk)01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Special Barnstar
For your resysopping of Floq,
You're one of those admins that simply stays out of all drama and to my knowledge you've never came in and done something like this I guess,
I absolutely agree with what Floq said you did this because you believed you were correct and that it was the correct thing to do and I think I can say without a doubt the community are right behind you and obviously the majority do think what you've done is honourable and correct,
Anyway babbling on - Many thanks for reysopping Floq and also many thanks for your valued contributions here,
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My goodness I admire your guts, clear-headedness and the common decency you showed when referring yourself to Arbcom. I definitely wouldn't have granted the resysop (you probably knew that anyway) and I am uncomfortably unsure if I really agree with it in policy terms, but that doesn't mean I don't applaud it. For however long it lasts, I'm proud to be your colleague and wish I knew more people like you in real life. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hopefully you don't need it, but in case you do...
I admire people who do what's right even if it's not necessarily what's "supposed to" happen, or what's popular. Frood22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
What happened
Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
To me it looks like ArbCom or one of their members felt it would be too controversial to sanction Fram for incivility, so they passed the buck to WMF. They hoped that “secret evidence” could be cited to make people think Fram was a horrible person, but this scheme seems to have backfired, spectacularly. I’m just shaking my head at the stupidity of it all. Thank you for your service. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).JehochmanTalk23:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we know enough to draw that conclusion and I prefer to AGF where possible. However, now that the theory is gaining traction I think it's important to diffuse defuse it. It ought to be straightforward for current ArbCom members (and indeed one who recently resigned) to confirm that they did not contact the WMF Truth & Safety team regarding Fram prior to the Office ban being implemented... WJBscribe(talk)10:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure that you want to diffuse that theory rather than defuse it? Personally I would have thought that was one of the theories worth defusing, or at least worth misdirecting/distracting people away from. BTW the London meetup is only a couple of weeks away, any chance of you joining us there? ϢereSpielChequers12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Worm has reported that the Committee didn’t start this fiasco and he is not aware of any Arb who might have. I suppose we need to ask each one to confirm that this wasn’t malice. The AGF conclusion is than WMF staff are inexperienced, lacking legal or cybersecurity expertise. They’re out of their depth and WMF will have to be much more careful in the future. A great mystery is why FloNight (talk·contribs) didn’t warn them off, or maybe she did. JehochmanTalk13:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we're quite capable of causing our own mess on Wikipedia (c.f. recent security announcements) without getting the WMF involved. I'm a little disappointed that you're pushing for some sort of conspiracy theory here Jehochman. WormTT(talk) 13:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The conspiracy theories may be regrettable but now that they exist, it is probably best just to address them square on. WJBscribe(talk)15:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Given that one arb has already publicly confirmed that they "discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team" prior to the ban, I'm not sure "conspiracy theory" is a fair accusation. 28bytes (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
If it wasn’t an Arbitrator, just ask your peers to say so. If WMF weren’t invited, then the story will be WMF assuming ArbCom’s role. As Carcharoth has suggested elsewhere, the proper response would be for the arbitrators to resign en mass. JehochmanTalk14:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman and everyone here. I'm saddened by this whole thing - though I do get where you're coming from. My understanding is that it wasn't just one individual who had raised concerns with the foundation, but I do not know the details of the individuals that have made the complaints. If any arbitrator did so, they would have done so as a member of the community. One of the points that has come up is the idea that the community has no method to handling on-wiki hostilities privately - and actually, that's true. It goes against the mindset of Wikipedians, and this discussion exemplifies it.
You are looking for someone to take responsibility for getting Fram banned. I get that, I really do - the idea of taking responsibility for accusations and allowing someone to rebut with evidence. And from there when it comes down to it, you want to be able to balance the scales, work out who was more valuable to the encyclopedia. We see it regularly in terms like "net positive", or labelling someone's work as trash.
Perhaps it's time to change that mindset. I don't know. What I do know is that I've been told, multiple times, by many editors, that they were leaving Wikipedia because of the way they've been treated by other individuals. Wikipedia was an experiment, using a social group to create the "sum of all human knowledge". We've built our own rules and our own walled garden of how to behave. This whole case is making me take a step back and look at the bigger picture - are we behaving how we would expect to in society? Have our cultural norms fallen that far from real life cultural norms?
There are bigger questions here than one person's ban. I'm interested in working out the answers to those questions. WormTT(talk) 15:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's talk about good practice. (1) I don't want somebody from the community to be singled out. It actually doesn't matter who complained, as long as it wasn't an arbitrator. (2) If a complaint comes to WMF, if it involved legal issues, such as criminal behavior, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or something similar, I want that to be handled by WMF legal staff. I don't want it handled by social media specialists a few years out of university. I want licensed lawyers involved. (3) If WMF gets a confidential complaint about an abusive administrator or editor related to their edits on wiki, they should hand it off the ArbCom with all the evidence but without the names of the complainants. What to do depends upon the verifiable evidence. It doesn't matter who submits the diffs; the diffs speak for themselves. (4) WMF should absolutely not create an alternative pathway to avoid ArbCom. We don't want some guy from Germany who hasn't edited en-wiki for over five years and isn't even a native English speaker to try to determine what language is abusive, and what isn't. The nuanced analysis of that problem is ideal for ArbCom.
If an arbitrator initiated this debacle, that would draw their judgment into question and might require them to resign. I am concerned that arbitrators heard about this wreck as it was happening and didn't strenuously warn WMF that they were about to drive off a cliff. Maybe they did, and WMF refused to listen. Either way we have work to do to get everybody on the same page, following good practices. JehochmanTalk15:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Out of all the names that have resigned, I'm most sorry to see yours become one of one of them. I hope that time will heal this wound, but I know the odds of that happening aren't great. Thanks for all you've done, the years of service and, on a personal note, for granting my rename back in 2008, when another 'crat tried to block it for personal reasons. Best of luck for the future, Will. Promethean (talk)08:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Black day, loosing the best - as I said to Boing already. Take some flowers on your way, miss you, miss you, miss you. I woke up this morning thinking that you deserve Impact, and will give it to you when there's more room here, - first flowers then cherry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all you've done for Wikipedia. I wish that you would edit again even if not intending to recover previous privileges. Although I've been following it from a bird's eye, this whole affair blew way out of proportions to me. However, I realize that I have much less investment and involvement in the project than all those who recently resigned. Remains to hope for deescalation and perhaps more new admins to compensate soon ("la releve")... —PaleoNeonate – 08:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe it was "out of proportion". The installation of a secret police which you can't appeal deserves strong opposition, because it kills the spirit of community, no less. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
“
A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. The defendants in such courts are often denied access to legal representation and in some cases, proper defence and the right of appeal.
(edit conflict)Sure, but for perspective: here are the internal processes of a private entity (including arbcom), vs the legal office dealing with real-world legal issues (including as necessary, providing information to courts while attempting to preserve confidentiality). Real courts (and more powerful political kangaru courts) affect lives. This affects access to a private website (and virtual avatars, accounts). But I understand the frustration (probably not fully) and will respectfully stop to debate about this after this message... —PaleoNeonate – 09:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The 'real world' is a varied place, and while some can find a legal warrant or precedent in some systems for the WMF's usurpation of what most think is an ARBCOM matter, others will recall that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the impeccable neutral Israeli NGO B'tselem, and numerous legal scholars agree that the 99% conviction rate of military courts in the West Bank for offences from terrorism to stone throwing, marrying a foreigner without a permit, or having a distant relative who works for the Hamas administration (which invalidates permission to take up one's Fulbright scholarship) draw on 'evidence' given by secret services that is available neither to the accused nor their lawyers. Such systems are intrinsically open to abuse, and documented cases of such abuse are very extensive. Most editors here will recall less controversial stories closer to our native bone. If the intent loudly declared for these innovations is to make Wikipedia 'comfortable' for all, that kind of frustrating analogy should have been present to the SF bureaucrats as it certainly is to the overwhelming number of arbs and editors here who, as writers, are exposed to a far wider cultural and political range of historical events - which arbs to must familiarize themselves with to adjudicate on many conflicts that arise over a very variegated article diapason,- than is evidently the case with the employees at T&S. No legal move of this nature should constrain workers to feel pushed into a serious ethical dilemma, as has happened here.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Such a sad day, I consider you to be of one of the best admins/'crats the project/foundation has ever had, Anyway thank you for your service here, I hope one day you return, Take care and I wish you all the best, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Every action you’ve taken in this has been based on an honorable and consistent set of principles. I can’t say that. Not many can. Thanks. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Worst thing I've ever done on Wikipedia
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've removed your sysop flag. I've always admired you as an editor, admin and crat. I don't agree with all your recent actions, but, as I posted above, I admire the heck out of your courage, communication skills, clear thinking and abhorrence of pussyfooting. I suspect your retirement will indeed be permanent and that, combined with the negativity of the situation, saddens me more than anything. I wish you good luck with all your RL endeavours. But if you're anything like your onwiki self IRL, you don't need any luck. Be well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!11:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments11 people in discussion
I wanted to say a huge thank you not only to those who have posted supportive messages here and elsewhere, but also to those who have posted criticisms of my actions. It has been a pleasure editing this project alongside each and every one of you, whether we have agreed or not. I hope that those whose advice I have not felt able to follow over the last couple of weeks do think it fell on deaf ears. I have read every word and listened carefully.
Some have suggested that my recent actions have been out of character. I think that overlooks some of my history on this project. I have always believed more in principles than rules. Some may remember my unblock of Giano during the 2008 ArbCom elections, others my staunch objection to the existence of an off-wiki bureaucrat mailing list, or indeed my strong opposition to certain resysop decisions at WP:BN that I felt ran contrary to the best interests of the project. It is probably true to say that I have been one of the most "activist" / "interventionist" bureaucrats. Whether that is a good or bad thing I leave to the judgment of others, but I make no apology for it.
Harassment is a serious issue, and one that has affected me personally in my time editing the project. I have never spoken publicly about the full reasons for my withdrawal from the 2008 ArbCom elections. I did so due to threats I received that actions would be taken against me in the real world to embarrass me and my then employer. I had recently started a new position and was relatively junior, so that was a threat that I could not ignore. I withdrew from the elections and resigned as an admin and bureaucrat. Some months later, when I felt more secure and established at work, I resumed service as an admin and bureaucrat. It has been a matter of great sadness to me to see some suggest that I don't take the issue of harassment seriously or that recent actions by me are supportive of harassment. That is not the case, and I caution people against being overly quick to accept unquestioningly a narrative that has been presented to them. The WMF account of its actions in relation to Fram does not withstand the most cursory scrutiny - it should be treated with utmost suspicion.
There are two very serious problems facing the community at the moment, and neither ought to be allowed to eclipse the other:
WMF v community self-governance. There is an urgent need to clarify the extent to which WMF is required to defer to community consensus, and the extent to which it must explain its actions and be held accountable for them by local communities. Without this, the project will hemorrhage contributors. Absent sufficient autonomy, wikipedia will simply not be the project that many of us chose to give our time to. The number of staffers would need to rise exponentially to fill the gap. I suggest WMF think long and hard about the value to them of the volunteer time they benefit from.
Fair process in WMF actions. In all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the accused must have basic rights. Those include the right to know the name of their accuser(s), to understand what they are accused of, and to have the opportunity to defend themselves. The accused must also have the right for any public statement about them to clearly identify the misconduct that they were found to have committed, rather than to be subject to vague insinuations and innuendo thrown about from those who claim to speak from a position of authority. Fram has been treated abysmally. The decision of two of my fellow bureaucrats to re-enact a punishment applied by WMF with no respect for basic concepts of fairness was the last straw in convincing me that I could not continue here.
I would remind everyone that over the last few years I been minimally active on the project, with little time to dedicate to it. Everyone will be fine without me. I also think that it is time for this project to stop relying on old hands in key positions. ArbCom is increasingly comprised of re-elected former Arbs, many bureaucrats (including me) were elected over a decade ago. That's not a good thing. We need fresh blood in key roles.
I hope that matters are resolved in relation to the two issues that I have identified above such that in future I will feel able to continue contributing to this project, but my days as a bureaucrat or administrator are done. WJBscribe(talk)11:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that clear summary of the problem, and for all that you have done here, as well as the wise advice that you used to dispense at London meetups. We have missed you for a long while at those meetups and the community will miss you here. I can only hope that at some point things change to the point where you feel able to return to either or both. ϢereSpielChequers12:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, while I thought your resysop of Fram was a spectacularly bad decision (due to potentially missing information about off-wiki harassment), I always have respect for principles and transparency, something I haven't seen in the WMF as of late. The dumbest thing about this whole mess is it could have been prevented if the WMF had simply and transparently said something like, "For harassment, including off-wiki harassment at an editor's workplace [or insert whatever he really did here], Fram is banned". As it is, the indications from the WMF are that something happened off-wiki, but their alleged email to Fram simply mentions the "Fuck Arbcom" tirade. If Fram is lying, why don't the WMF simply call him out? While there is a need for privacy and to not re-victimize people, a purely-opaque process is just as bad. Anyways, I'm sad to see you step down, since you seem to have some of the strongest and most transparent principles. I know what you stand for. I can't say the same about the WMF. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you from me. You were one of several crats I was deeply disappointed in in a recent decision. But your two actions in relation to the WMF's temporary ban on Fram, and your rationales for them, earned my respect. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And a very profound thank you from me. I believe that you have shown the highest level of integrity throughout this awful period in Wikipedia's history, and that you should hold your head high. I wish you all the best – and I wish you a very short retirement from Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I admittedly don't agree with your actions. I think that none of us know the real reasons for Fram's block & desysop and I'm not sure, if the harassment was true, that he was entitled to confront his accuser. But I do admire you for acting according to your principles and I'm sorry that you want to retire. There will always be a place for you here and I think both those who agree with your actions and those who felt they crossed a line would welcome your return as an editor. I'm also sorry that you faced harassment 11 years ago which no Wikipedian should be subject to. Please come back should your desire to contribute return. LizRead!Talk!02:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Just to be clear, I think there is world of difference between knowing who your accuser is (which is a basic right irrespective of the nature of the complaint against you) and a right to "confront" your accuser, which would rarely (if ever) be appropriate. I have never advocated for the latter. WJBscribe(talk)09:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, there is nothing "judicial" nor "quasi-judicial" about anything here. Such rhetoric is preposterous, and the unfortunate thing is some people seem believe website participation is a judicial matter. It is not, and the sooner people can be disabused of that fantasy, the better for them. At any rate, I too, wish you well. I wish you would have found a way to choose restraint as a functionary from the get go in this matter, and I wish you would have even found a way to stay in the function (even though, what you say about 'new blood' functionaries is still very wise). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm very sad that it all came to this. I disagree with your actions in this whole situation with Fram, but I do think you were approaching the situation with calmness and logic, and that's something that this movement needs more of, not less. Best of luck to you in all your future endeavours, Will. I hope our paths cross again. --Deskana (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I know that I haven't worked with you (or anyone really) lately, but like I said earlier, doing what's right even if it's not what's "supposed to" happen takes courage, and I respect the hell out of that. As the late Aaron Swartz said, "There is no justice in following unjust laws". Frood20:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia and best wishes. I hope the current problems will be resolved satisfactorily and that will encourage you to return. Donner60 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Update
I have been reading the various developments since I posted above. I just wanted to drop a note to say that I share many of the views expressed by those who have responded to the recent statements by the WMF Board and CEO (both in terms of disappointment that there wasn't more, and optimism that they nevertheless paint a way forwards). I think many, potentially including Board members, may have had unrealistic expectations as to what those statements would achieve. Words alone were never going to be enough to convince all those who have left to reconsider, nor to prevent further resignations/retirements. Too much trust has been lost along the way for there to be an easy fix available. I for one will continue to watch developments and to see how community interactions with the WMF actually change in the coming weeks/months, and whether a fair process is developed to replace the current WMF T&S fiasco. I confess to be skeptical as to what will be achieved, but I am trying hard to keep an open mind. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. WJBscribe(talk)11:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
7 weeks later...
I am saddened by developments since I have been away. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence and the failure to present evidence from T&S so that Fram can defend themselves is abhorrent. ArbCom's treatment of Ritchie333 is inexcusable. Certain "Wikimedia movement" "Working Group" recommendations show a strong push to move the project in a manner totally incompatible with the pillars on which it was built. I confess to despair at the state of affairs. It is difficult right now to imagine being able to participate here again in future... WJBscribe(talk)14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:
Community advisedOffice actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ([4]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.
Although official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk·contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions ([8]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
above, "7 weeks on", and at Arbcom, deserve more than a mashing of the "thanks" button. Thank you for expressing your dismay. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Plus one. I have spent less time here of late, revived an old hobby and tried out a new one. I don't yet give up hope of Arbcom at least doing something sensible. But we'd also need multiple Uturns by the WMF. ϢereSpielChequers17:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Half full, half empty
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
ArbCom has always had a mailing list where they discuss cases. I don't think we should pummel an arbitrator who discloses what was discussed on the list. This is better than them talking privately without any disclosure. Hopefully their discussion will now continue in public. JehochmanTalk12:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Special award
For your steady hand during the Wikipedia constitutional crisis of 2019, I award you this polar exploration vessel. It made it to the ends of the world and back home. More or less in one piece. Haukur (talk)
Bureaucrat emeritus
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I miss you a lot. Not trying to make you feel guilty, or change your mind about serving, but the bureaucrat team is diminished by your absence.
I’ve been accused of “doggedly badger[ing] opposers”, and it you have any spare time and appetite for a review, I would appreciate your comments as to my behaviour with respect to Greenman’s RfA and whether I have acted inappropriately at any point. If you are willing and able, please speak freely as I value your wisdom.
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
