Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Legal/Community Resilience and Sustainability/Trust and Safety

Missing content?

@Kbrown (WMF): Where is the history of this page? It seems to have been moved from 3 May 2018. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Hi Lane, you can find past versions of this department's info page at "Support and Safety" (which now redirects to this page since our team was renamed). Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): May I arrange for a history merge of that content to this page? Otherwise I might mark the other page as a historical archive. My aim is to make the older content more accessible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: This is regretfully not easy because of translation woes, but it's also not something we want to do since it would give the impression that this is a name change only - the workflows and such for the team are functionally different. I have instead linked to the old SuSa page from the lede which hopefully should tie it back. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): That is helpful but is still a nonstandard way to archive. It does not help the image of this group to have that link hanging in the lead and I imagine that in within years the link would need to go.

I do not feel too strongly about this and I cannot read the motivation here about whether this is a bureaucratic issue or whether there is a reason for pulling the content out of the standard archiving practices. If I were doing this I would probably choose one of these common options:

1. history merge - put the old records in front of these new ones. There is a one-day, one-edit overlap but I think it works.
2. make the old page live, put it out of the way, and put {{Historical}} on it

I think I will not comment further. This struck me as a ~1 in 10,000 strange incident so I spoke up about it, but I do not have so much of an opinion at this time. Thanks for your responses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Bluerasberry - Option 1 would be the best option but because of how the translate extension works, it's not really feasible. I agree the solution at present is suboptimal and I can only apologise about that. I think making the old page live is simply going to generate more confusion than a redirect. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): Is this new way of archiving becoming routine? Do you expect that every time any page on meta gets a revision and has used translation extension then it will be necessary to turn the old page to a redirect, start a new page, and break from the natural MediaWiki archiving systems?

If there is something weird about this case, then that is unfortunate. If this is the new normal for some reason, and this has been happening and is now routine in many places, then I hope we have Phabricator tickets documenting this as a problem in conflict with community norms for archiving, if in fact this is a problem. Do you know of a Phabricator ticket on this issue? Should I file one and post here? I know nothing about this.

Again, I only care a little about this. I did not expect this to be a discussion but I just saw something strange. I would like to resolve this somehow and exit my part in this discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this is not urgent. I want to step away for now. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Locked sysops’ accounts

Hello.
Of the four sysops’ accounts locked on June 10 only one Perhelion is unlocked by now – the very acc which presumedly infected Commons for the first time, causing other users to be exposed to a malicious script. What do you want from the remaining three guys – to come on foot to your California and submit humble petitions to the Office directly? Is this “safety”? And when will trust return here? @Rxy: also for your information. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Incnis Mrsi. All but one of these accounts is now unlocked, since they emailed into us and we could confirm their identities. I would greatly appreciate that, if you know Schekinov Alexey Victorovich, you ask him to email us at cawikimedia.org from the email address associated with his account and we can get that one unlocked as well. (See Wikitech for why this process is how it is.) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): I’m in process of negotiating an intermediary to post a message to his vk.com profile. Would you provide specific instructions to the user? Such as “to clear the browser cache”, “to log on from another device”, or so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I would just ask him to email us from the email he signed up with if that is possible. It is okay if he does that in Russian. He will not be able to log in until his account is unlocked no matter his browser, cache etc. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The procedure at wikitech:Password reset/Confirming identities was probably developed by competent people, but they assumed some evil-doer who succeeded in stealing or guessing the password, and unlikely envisaged the current situation. No password stealing took place, at least for the three accounts locked after 10:50 (UTC). The accounts were compromised with a backdoor in Special:BotPasswords, and the residual danger is not about the main password, but about malicious scripts which can be inadvertently activated by the rightful owner. It is unfortunate that Trust_and_Safety undertakes some measures which ignore nature of the threat. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): Schekinov can’t remember which Email was specified in his main account,[1] whereas Special:EmailUser is disabled for locked accounts. Can you unlock the account for few seconds, use Special:EmailUser/Schekinov Alexey Victorovich and then lock it again? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Email address

Does the Trust and Safety team have a general email address for public (non-Wikimedia community) inquiries? There does not seem to be one posted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Bluerasberry:, the vast majority of inquiries our team gets are from within or directly tied to the communities. So there currently is no inbox more general than those serving such purposes. We are also modestly restraint about the public profile the existing ones as the example of answers/business@ demonstrates the considerable spam coming along with having them posted in public. That certainly should be fixed but would probably involve changing the input interface approach to something less ancient than publicly available raw email addresses. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@JEissfeldt (WMF): Thanks. If I understand correctly then anyone seeking escalation to the WMF regarding safety concerns should either reconsider and engage with wiki volunteers or write to legal@wikimedia.org as the only path to speak with WMF staff. Correct me if there is any other procedure in place. This seems resolved though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, @Bluerasberry:, as there are workflows where it is very advisable to escalate to the team directly, notably those falling within the scope of emergency@ based on the instructions there. Most daily disagreements of Wikipedian community life, however, fall within the scope of the communities self-governance detailed in the Terms of Use. Respecting the autonomy of a community is important and those cases only reach us if they turn out to be fairly severe, usually meaning the communities can't resolve them on their own. The main pathway for such issues has traditionally been via the functionaries --Jan (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved.

Okay, that works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Contact Trust and Safety

Hi - I was told that I need to contact Trust and Safety by the Stewards (re compromised account), but I don't see a form or contact link. How do I do this? Thanks!

Hi there - you should email us at cawikimediaorg, preferably from the email associated with your account. Thanks. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI

See de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Wiki 2019/Gesundheit der Community.Mautpreller (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This should be discussed in public. I won't write a mail, the whole "Trust & Safety" question absolutely requires an open discussion. If this is not the right place, tell me where it is. In my view, the whole institution as well as the processes are generally severely flawed, there is neither trust nor safety left.Mautpreller (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There are five conditions as minmum standards for a fair process:

• More than one small institution (as T&S) has to be involved, most notably the community (maybe in form of some representative). Self-empowerment of T&S is not acceptable.
• Non-publication must be restricted to privacy issues. Allegations, verdicts, case accounts and reasonings have to be made public, with the sole exception of things that could infringe on privacy in the specific case.
• There has to be a public, accountable and clear procedure, including clear criteria for necessity of WMF intervention, immediate danger, possible reasons for decisions.
• The persons accused of wrongdoing must have full possiblities to defend themselves and plead their cause. If this is not fully possible because of specific privacy reasons, they need a representative to protect their rights (kind of advocate). This person may come from a relatively small number of trustworthy users. (Maybe the other side could also need such a representative.)
• An appeal has to be possible. It has to be decided by a different gremium. A decision without appeal is unworthy of a civilized community.Mautpreller (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - agreed with the rationale behind these actions. This is the way the community should go. Starship.paint (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - Something is seriously wrong with how T&S is operating, and it can't be explained by legitimate privacy concerns, given that they're claiming privilege on literally everything - including things that should in no way implicate the safety or privacy of accusers. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - I particularly like point 4. The WMF claims that individuals can't see evidence against them as it risks more harassment (and breaches their overly broad privacy offerings). A small group of advocates, voted then vetted in the same way as Stewards, would work as a good compromise. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - I agree and support all points however the main one for me is #4 - In the case of Fram it would seem they were banned with no notification, no well ... nothing ...., If I'm about to face a T&S ban I sure as hell would like to know about it first and I sure as hell would want to defend myself too. Anyway support. –Davey2010^Talk 11:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment I can't fully support the conditions as stated although I'm very sympathetic to the majority of them and definitely to the underlying concerns. My particular problem with the last point is that I can imagine situations (typically involving legal — will elaborate if not obvious) where an appeal is not an option. I do disagree that the general concept that all office actions are nonappealable is too broad but I equally disagree that the opposite position – "all office actions ought to be appealable" — is viable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Even Charlie Manson got to go to the parole board every few years and appeal. If "an appeal is not an option", just let them appeal, determine with fresh eyes whether the decision that an appeal is not an option was a good one, shoot them down, and make them wait a couple of years before being allowed to appeal again. The alternative is to have today's T&S be handcuffed by a decision make by the T&S that existed ten years ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support the first sentence in that there needs to be discussion about this. As far as the specific bullet points, I think that is what needs to be resolved through that discussion. I can foresee merits for both sides on several of the issues at hand, and would like to see cases laid out for them. Ched (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - to all points. --Kein Einstein (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - all points. Carrite (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Support in full. Justice without due process for the accused is not remotely compatible with the notion of justice. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support * Pppery * _{it has begun} 20:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

*"Allegations, verdicts, case accounts and reasonings have to be made public, with the sole exception of things that could infringe on privacy in the specific case" - the problem is that they'll just claim that none of allegations, evidence and probably reasonings, can be given without infringing the privacy of the accuser. They may be right. However transparent justice is important - privacy of victim/accuser should only be maintained where an argument can be made that it's needed to protect them. An accusation should be accompanied, however, by a 2-way IBAN between accuser and accused. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I refuse to accept that nothing can be made public. I simply don't believe it. They could omit certain things, as name of alleged victim, concrete situation, if necessary, but there should be a reason for this in the specific case. Look at that Fram case. I cannot see that anything in the way of privacy was at stake there. And if there was, why should this be a reason not to publish a verdict with reasoning(s)? If they want to say, Fram generally has an intimidating manner and this can't be managed by the community, why don't they do so? Why don't they give any justification for their action? Why is it impossible to give any particulars? Like that, it is a situation reminding me of Kafka's Process. This can't be right.Mautpreller (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Every defendant has the right to see his plaintiff. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the right place for this discussion on meta would be Wikimedia Forum. --Count Count (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure? There should be an open (global!) discussion on Meta, but I'm not an insider of Meta and don't know where it will be best noticed.Mautpreller (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mautpreller: Hmm, on second thought I think opening a new RfC would be even more appropriate. There was Requests for comment/Superprotect rights for example. --Count Count (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I'll do that as soon as the extended documentation of the T&S process is online, as User:JEissfeldt (WMF) announced.Mautpreller (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Relink "Wikimedia Foundation bans of users" to reflect new tool capabilities

Under the 'What we do/Trust and Safety' header, the link for "Wikimedia Foundation bans of users" leads to WMF Global Ban Policy, which I believe is... incomplete, or could/should link to a broader page, reflecting the capabilities of temporary, and site/project-specific bans. Perhaps the wordage of the landing page simply needs updating with respect to this? Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Open letter from the Arbitration Committee to the WMF Board

As this is about the conduct of the T&S in regard of the communities, I'll link the Open letter from the Arbitration Committee to the WMF Board about the completely botched Fram decision here as well. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The board has issued a Statement here on enWP. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about Trust and Safety timelines

This page states that the goal for resolving "child protection" investigations is 24 hours. Is this 24 hours from when the report is made, 24 hours from when a staff member reads the report, or 24 hours from when the investigation is begun? I suppose I am also asking if "24 hours" really means 24 hours or two business days? I asked on Jimbo's talk page and pinged members of the team, but got no reply. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): can you help? Bitter Oil (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Office_actions/Community_consultation_on_partial_and_temporary_office_actions/draft

Hello T&S Team,

First I'd like to send good wishes to Karen! Her presence and responses is a great motivation to us in preparation for the consultation.
Thanks to you and her for the quick response to add new questions, this was significant progress in my opinion.

As she's on leave till 11 September, and the office actions consultation draft's deadline is 30 Aug, can we expect some of you having an eye on the discussion there?
New questions have been proposed for your consideration: Transparency, trust

Thank you in advance. — Aron M (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Password and my account

Hello, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for about a year without logging out. And now I realized that I can’t remember the password and enter my e-mail, because it was not filled during registration, and now entering a new one requires "you need to confirm your identity" password. [2]. I’m afraid to log out and lose all the work I have done. I have another account Kurtapelatur, maybe it'll help. Please help me continue to work on Wikipedia. --Kookdans (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Event Incident Form.

Hello Trust and Safety Team!

My name is User:Uzoma Ozurumba from Igbo Wikimedians User Group. I participated in the WikiIndaba 2019 conference as the Event Trust and Safety Team Lead; I must say that it was an excellent opportunity to learn about the work your Team do in Wikimedia and the importance of keeping an event safe. Based on this opportunity, I have created an Incident form that can help people to file in a friendly space violation complaint during a Wikimedia event anonymously. I believe this form can serve as an incident form template for Wikimedia events (as I checked for one and did not find any). Please feel free to improve on it to make it better for use in any conference.

@User:Kritzolina it was an enjoyable experience learning from and working with you during the WikiIndaba 2019 conference.

Thank you.

--Uzoma 10:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Emergency situation

In these troubled times when one accesses this page one does not have a clear indication of which email or phone number to use to report or to provide help to a wikimedian in distress. Maybe there could be somenthing like a 24/24 support line for wikimedians looking for emotionnal support and at the top of the page an email that one can mail to? Is this the place to report or send someoneː

• • Threats of harm filed through Emergency@Wikimedia

? Nattes à chat (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) By the way I found these ressources that I think are quite usefulː

1. http://supernovaproject.org/
2. https://chayn.co/about/

Nattes à chat (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This comment comprises words

I suggest that the word "comprise" (as in "Trust and Safety comprises part of the Community Resilience & Sustainability wing of the Legal Department") is compromised, since it used to be strictly synonymous with "is made up of", as in "this deck comprises 52 cards." Through common usage it has come to mean the opposite, as in "52 cards comprise this deck", but people still read it both ways so it's inherently ambiguous. I'm sure most readers will scan that as T&S being part of rather than including that wing of Legal, but if it was me I'd make it more simple and direct. Best. Eleven even (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the structure of the sentence makes confusion less likely than the sheer dispute over the word usage might mean. However, with meta-wiki documents there is another aspect often ignored - simple text is easier to machine translate. So just "is part of" would be a way to go. Though on making it easier for the 300+ languages to read the critical documentation, a proper re-write would probably be needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Trust & Safety Team in ca@wikimedia.org

I was asked to contact the Trust & Safety group at ca@wikimedia.org, but I couldn't find anything in the respective. They sent me the following message: - this is a second note to request that you contact the Foundation’s Trust & Safety team, at ca@wikimedia.org. Please, consider doing so by no later than Monday 24 August 2020. Otherwise, we will communicate further on the matter with you publicly. I can't answer, since the first message, because the respective team, in Canadian wikimedia, doesn't exist! Well, what would be the reason for notifying me. The tone was judiciary!

If it's here, great! What would be the problem?

I abandoned wikipedia and wikimedia because I was banned from wikipedia. I have no interest in contributing anymore. If it is due to the editions and contributions, I did not do it for obscure purposes. The edits were expensive, it took more than 3 years for me to become familiar with the platform.

Basquyati (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC).

Zendesk spam

@JSutherland (WMF): What is this? I'm not renewing my cable subscription! Is T&S really sending these messages to people worried about their friend's mental health, or who just saw images of child abuse?

From: Support <trustandsafety (at) wikimediats (dot) zendesk (dot) com>
Subject: Request #26980: How do you feel about our support?

Hello Suffusion of Yellow,

We'd love to hear how you feel about the support you received. Do you believe our response to your question or concern was fair?

And there are external images hosted on iconsdb.com, with links to zendesk.com. The closest I could find to a privacy policy is https://www.iconsdb.com/cookies.html, which says that cookies may be used for "Advertising, insights and measurement". I haven't even looked at zendesk yet. Please tell me this was sent by accident. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Those absolutely should not be going out for emergency@ emails. I've flagged to the team and we believe this is now fixed. Apologies for the alarm or confusion. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): Thanks. Should I send a test email to emergency@..., just to be sure? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: In theory Zendesk only does this for a sampling of emails, so there wouldn't be a guarantee that you'd get it again even if it weren't fixed. I'll check with the team to make sure though. Sorry again. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Disinformation

Hello. I've noticed that a few places reference this team's role in combating disinformation, but am having a hard time finding specifics on what that entails. Could anybody point me in the right direction to learn more about the Trust and Safety team's (or Wikimedia's) policies, responsibilities and procedures are regarding disinformation, or let me know if there is a specific person to whom I could direct questions about that? Thanks! --Gotrees4 (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Handling foreign language requests

Sorry if it's not the right page to ask, ready to move to the right one.
I would like to be more clear about T&S mechanics for inquiries in languages which is not native or fluently known to anyone or close to none of T&S team members. 1) is it handled by evenly trusted translators on hire within the T&S? 2) is it handled with help of some trusted functionaries in that wiki from where the inquiry came? 3) is it fully on the requestor side to explain the issue in an understandable English and further assist with translation if anything follows? 4) some other mechanics? --Neolexx (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Staff ?

Is that meant on purpose that absolutely no names are mentioned as to who works on the Trust and Safety team ? There is zero mention about that in the page Trust and Safety. I could understand it is a mean to protect people but it really looks like a black box. Would not it be more logical that at least we have the names of the main people in charge of the department ? I read on the French bistro that there was somebody hired to take care of the French issues. It is odd that we do not even know who that is ? Or is it on purpose that this is kept secret ? Anthere (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Try the Trust and Safety Specialists own user pages: [3] Vexations (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

About User:Krassotkin global lock

Dears Trust and Safety team members!

Please explain publically your reasons for the Krassotkin account global lock at the 16:28, 2021-10-12.

I have been a member of the wiki community since 2004, and I am not aware of any Krasotkin-related cases regarding "misuse of facilities, and intimidation of fellow volunteers" (citation from your notification letter to him), who would require a similar extremally action. And there were no such incidents at all!

If there are real reasons for your actions, then they should be firstly discussed by the community.

Public action should be responded to publicly, transparently, and in a manner that allows for community feedback. The Foundation and its staff are just the operators of our projects, not the owners at all.

You have the power to do such things, but you have no moral authority to do so without publicly giving reasons. Currently, the main hypothesis is someone's bias or that you have been misinformed. It is in your best interest to correct this opinion as soon as possible.

Today it looks like a gross misuse of an office action tool. Kaganer (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF), please note. Kaganer (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this needs explanation. Especially when all that Foundation sends to the accused is an anonymous letter in the style "you should know what you did, some paragraph surely must match you". --Ehitaja (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this needs explanation. --Perohanych (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

NB: WMF Statement (diff). Kaganer (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also believe that public actions (by User:Krassotkin) should be discussed in public. Lesless (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a word of the WMF communication. Not a single word. I cannot look through this, not speaking Russian and unbeknownst of the case. "We notified Krassotkin of the action, including the reason for it." The first thing is, Krassotkin should have been heard before he was banned. This is a simple human rights position, en:Right to be heard. He should have been given the opportunity to defend himself. And if the right to be heard was not granted to him because of impending danger (I don't know if this was the case), there must absolutely be the possibility of an appeal. This is an autocratic behavior, inconsistent with a human rights perspective. But I don't even believe that "the reason" was communicated to him, having my experiences with T&S. I cannot know whether Krassotkin has done anything wrong (maybe), but I am absolutely sure that T&S has (again) done something very wrong. When shall we have fair trials in the Wikimedia sphere? Not before T&S has completely resigned.-- Mautpreller (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mautpreller, he had such an opportunity, I personaly informed him that his behavior (damage to servers and lack of remorse about it) is a subject of investigation of some sort (without details which I do not know) and he need to show good will, which he denied to do. Carn (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

But this does not justify a sanction without being heard. That's the point, quite simply. Moreover, remorse should never be demanded in a fair trial. This can only lead to lip service. --Mautpreller (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's imagine the whole picture as it looks for T&S, probably:

1. The user drops the server.
2. The DPL that dropped them is turned off.
3. The user is outraged.
4. Programmers make cosmetic changes to DPL and turn it on in the hope that it will be used with discretion (as promised when turned on).
5. The user not only repeats, but also in an even larger size.
6. Servers crash again (what a surprise!).
7. DPL is turned off again so that the servers rise.
8. The user writes an attack article about a programmer volunteer who turned DPL off, then goes to the Fabricator to demand that everything be turned on for him again, simultaneously behaving rudely and aggressively.

Due to en:WP:FRAMGATE T&S have only two options — conduct warning and permanent global ban, I think that there was an understanding that the first will not help. Carn (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Only two options", not at all. These are the two measures T&S can enforce on their own account, without talking to anybody. But they could have talked, only didn't do it. There could have been the option of a moderation, of a compromise, there are many options. I am rather convinced that the problem could have been tackled, I could even name a longtime Wikipedian who could have mediated. Maybe successfully maybe unsuccessfully. Only T&S obviously isn't interested in that. In my view, because they simply want to do a final decision by themselves, without any obligation to hear anyone and to respond to anyone, least of all the "accused." I am afraid this will never change.--Mautpreller (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That is true that mediation is not a focus of T&S work. Carn (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

But that's the core of trust, but what's to expect from an org, where the head was the main developer of the meanest action against the Wikiverse at all, SuperProtect, the all-out war against the communities by the detached WMF. Same mindset as with this catastrophe: We decide, bugger the communities, they are just unwashed masses. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Two things: Yes I understand, mediation is not a focus of T&S work and certainly they would be bad mediators. But others could do that, if they got the chance. The point is not that T&S should have moderated or mediated themselves but that they don't even consider this option as a possible way of solution. More important, however, is the second point. Yes I understand, sanctions and trials are the focus of T&S work. But these are exactly the things they handle extremely badly. In a civilized world, an investigator and even more a decider has the duty to hear the other side, not after a final decision but before. The "accused" must have the opportunity to defend themselves, to make their point, to plead their cause. Maybe the decision will be against them all the same, that cannot be helped. But a procedure without granting them this right is fundamentally and inevitably unfair. It's autocratic rule rather than lawful procedure. --Mautpreller (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The user uploads content to a project
2. The servers are, despite year long warnings, not fit to do their job because of lack of action from the developers
3. The DPL that dropped them is turned off
4. The user is outraged because of the damage done to the project by the developers
5. Programmers make cosmetic changes to DPL and turn it on in the hope that it will be used with discretion (as promised when turned on)
6. The user continues with his content work, the core of the project he works on, and tries to slow it down a bit
7. The servers crush again, because the changes were just cosmetic, not real ones
8. DPL is turned off again so that the servers rise
9. The user writes an article about a volunteer programmer who turned DPL off, then goes to the Phabricator to demand that the needed software for the running of the WikiNews-Project be turned again
10. He got a global ban for working too heavy for a project.

That's the picture from another perspective. Why didn't the huge bunch of paid developers care about the core software of a project? Why were ressources (money and manpower) wasted on completely futile enterprises like rebranding while core software is not maintained (or updated)? Why is there not even a hint of any trials of moderation, hearing of all parties, open discussions about something, were absolute no secrecy was needed? Where ist the real project maintenance, that the devs, that are ultimately paid by money generated by the content, the project communities create, did to keep WikiNews-RU up and running? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The only Krassotkin's fault was the uploading of articles into the Russian Wikinews, that overloaded the servers of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia's projects. Instead of solving the technical problem, which has been known since 2012, the council of Wikipedia's sages decided to ban Krasotkin just because it is cheaper than solving the technical problem. This fact shows that the WMFOffice is not interested in the improvement and development of the technical part of Wikimedia, and this is very bad and sad. They prefer to spend money on themselves, rather than on improving the Wikimedia's software. Andrey177 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is a nice example how the same facts can be framed by description. Take two people who do not know the circumstances, tell one of them "The user dropped the servers" and they'll be sure to condemn. Tell the other that he did it by uploading the articles and they'll ask: "What's the whole point of the organization if not enabling that?" So, the important thing is to present "how it looks to T&S" as the only objective interpretation and conclude that T&S was the unfortunate Hand of God forced to act the only possible way - and there's the PR win on a golden plate. The sad thing is, WMF shouldn't try to spin the actual contributors into approving everything they do by demagoguery. --Ehitaja (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My personal summary about my impressions from the fascinating correspondence with the Trust & Safety (was sent as feedback by Foundation staff request):
----
As can be understood from the subsequent correspondence, I am totally dissatisfied with its results. I have not received clear answers to any of the questions I have asked.

I do not know (but would very much like to know) who is responsible for such a communication protocol. And even if this is a problem of the protocol, and not of the employee, then this is a poorly thought out, unsuccessful, and unusable protocol that requires revision. And it needs to be managed by those who will be accountable to the community, not by designated Foundation staff who, in fact, are not accountable to anyone.

I have no knowledge to judge all cases when decisions are made about office actions. But in this particular case, I believe that I have enough information from independent sources to qualify what is happening. I am convinced that inadequate sanctions were taken, that the suddenness of their application was not justified by anything, and the justifications provided indicate either insufficient understanding or deliberate misleading (I do not know which is worse).

The replies to my letters, polite in form, are essentially a refusal to give any explanation. This is unacceptable. I do not consider myself to be any special participant to whom everyone should tell everything. Of course, I don't. This should be a mandatory and completely public procedure. Those justifications for concealing the circumstances, causes, and consequences that are given - like the mythical safety of someone there - in this case, look like a far-fetched excuse.

I do not know what and how it was in other cases. But I am judging on this occasion about the whole protocol. And if I don't trust the decision in this case, I cannot trust other decisions either.

As a result, I feel neither trust nor safety. Kaganer (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on french wikipedia arbcom

Happy new year everyone,

As a former arbitrator on french wikipedia I received the Governance Committees Support Survey (I recently quit, but presumably the WMF system does not know that). Here is my response to: Is there anything else you would like us to know about the support or resources you need to better execute your role on this committee or commission? - which I think might as well be published on an english-speaking space so that people who may have insights can chime in. If there is a better place for that please move it. (@JAbrams (WMF):)

---

The french arbcom is chronically understaffed (currently 2 arbitrators since I left; never more than 6 arbitrators in recent times) and fails to attract the most experienced users. Almost all the handling of conflict between users at fr.wp is done at fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs by the administrators. They are about 150, among which a few dozens are sometimes active in conflict resolution and around 5-10 are very active in that. Their handling of cases is mostly fair and efficient, although it follows few formal procedures. That their handling of conflicts works rather well is ensured by the number of admins and by their relative diversity, rather than by procedures. On the contrary, the arbcom has a long list of rules and procedures which do not really help the cases being handled properly; if anything they help the cases not being handled at all - for example the rule that there must be 3 arbitrators to handle a case combined with the right of each arbitree to reject any one arbitrator.

What the arbcom needs if it must survive is to some extent more flexible rules, but above all more members from the fr-wp users who are the most experienced in conflict resolution. Those users are typically administrators and they already do conflict resolution in that capacity, in a much more confortable setting (flexible procedure, they give their time if and when they want, and they have been elected for life) that they would in the arbcom, so they understandably have no motivation to apply to the arbcom.

Compared to now, the arbcom probably could be dissolved with little difference on how the resolution of long conflicts within fr-wp works. One point though is that the arbcom has been used as a contact point by T&S to be kept in touch about the events on the wiki, and generally as a private contact point by various people. If we were to settle for a admin-only conflict resolution system, we must think about how T&S will work with us, and what users who need to talk in private with an authority about a conflict should do.

--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting @GrandEscogriffe: an interesting read, as I suspect like most pure en-wiki editors, I'd have defaulted to assuming that fr-wiki was one of the "clearly established and fully operational arbcoms" (as opposed to, say, en-wikiquote). Why do you think more fr-wiki admins don't run for arbcom? Because of those complex rules? Or because they feel it doesn't have much use with the normal conduct boards dealing with most things? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: Either or both depending on the person, and also the fact that by its role of attracting the most complex conflicts (not only due to its own rules) the arbcom requires more patience than typical work on RA. See the replies to the call for candidacies by admins that I made last year before applying. Deepl or whatever translator should do a good job except for the jargon: CAr = Comité d'arbitrage, arbcom; RA = Requêtes aux administrateurs, requests to admins by anybody; BA = Bulletin des administrateurs, discussions between admins. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear GrandEscogriffe, what is the main problem? Is it the lack of attractivity of the job and therefore few candidates? Or too much work load? Or functional redundancy (is the arbcom not a means of last resort in a system of checks & balances)? Is there any chance to reform the rejection rules of arbitrators (i had the pleasure to discuss the french partiality/rejection rules a bit in 2015: [4])? --Ghilt (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Strange private letter with mini-Office action

Dear Trust and Safety,

Yesterday by private mail I received your anonymous mail. As I abhor Star Chambers and such, after a 24 hours' wait, I published it here: User talk:Zezen#2022 JAN: Private Message from WMF revealed with my initial admin-level replies, also for all other concerned to see and comment.

-> Do reply in public, and not in private.

-> Unless you really must (which does not seem to be the case here), do not send such semi-threatening mails to anybody in private, as per divide et impera or otherwise. Also "sunlight is the best disinfectant" to our presumed wikifailures.

An admin note to the other gentle readers: be thus also advised of what has been happening at the background to some accounts, who were not that brave to advise of such mails here, and that maybe over the years, outside of any local ArbCom action. Should I be banned for revealing this or for writing this very message (which I half expect once again also here, via a Meta or a Global lock), please see the link above how to contact me off-wiki, here.

Bows to all!

Zezen (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Trust and Safety,

Please answer, or advise when you plan to answer or that you would not answer.

A colleague (maybe part of your Team?) suggested that the (yet not-enforced) Universal Code of Conduct is somehow related, so I also commented it there for now: User talk:Zezen#2022 JAN: Private Message from WMF revealed while waiting for your detailed explanation.

Bows, Zezen (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear misTrust and unSafety,

I/we are still waiting. Do answer us in public, in English first: there and then maybe in individual project Admin pages. (As you may not know, because e.g. you likely had not checked, I have been active in +20, only last year, and thus still do not know which of these you meant).

Do not be shy! We are professional: will teach and help you some.

Should fear thou hast in thy heart, O wikisister, pray banish it forthwith! Zezen (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Turnaround time on requests

Does anyone have any idea how long it should take to receive an acknowledgement of a request from ca@? Bovlb (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I never received an automated acknowledgement, which is what I expected, but I did get a human response within 26 hours. Bovlb (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)