User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not terribly so. Most cases during my term were cases involving clear abuse of tools. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!

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

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

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