Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 269

Discussion of off-wiki commentary
I don't know if we should do this here or maybe at the village pump or yet another RFA reform RFC but it seems clear we have a problem in this area. It's clearly not going to sink the current RFA, but there are some questions that need to be resolved:
 * How are we to evaluate accusations based on off-wiki evidence that apparently cannot even be named, yet alone directly linked to, on-wiki? Only users already in the know of these specifc discussions even know what is being discussed.
 * Is there a difference between off-wiki criticism forums as opposed to the en.wp dischord?
 * Is emailing links of the relvant off-wiki evidence to the arbitration committee even relevant, as ArbCom is in no way in charge of RFA?

Seems like we need to clarify this stuff. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking only to the second point, I think there's a pretty clear difference between participating at off-wiki criticism forums vs participation on one of the unofficial Wikipedia discords. I think it's at least relevant that the en-wiki Discord server is moderated mostly by Stewards and en-wiki admins. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of criticism forums, I really like the quote on your user page Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. — hako9 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, they're both 'off-wiki' forums for on-wiki activity. It is impossible to separate the two. The stewards and admins of Wikipedia perform very different functions on Discord; naturally so, as they are not subject to community oversight.  ——Serial Number 54129  19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense SN. Lightburst (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to separate the two. – I disagree, unless you were just referring to the idea of treating all off-wiki communication platforms the same. One is specifically tailored towards criticism and, ahem, other things. The community Discord however is meant to facilitate the work that goes on on-wiki in a positive way. Whether we always succeed in doing so is debatable (there is a genuine effort there from what I see), but the intent and purpose of the two are very different. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is a big difference in any random place off-wiki and the Discord, which is managed and moderated by Wikipedians and where you have to actually authenticate yourself to participate (or to see anything there). We've been down the road of treating "off-wiki" by semiofficial wateringholes as verboten to talk about, and that did not work out well. Treating Discord as a place where you cannot be held to account on-wiki but which everyone can see is not a winning combination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just reading along from my watchlist and not planning to deep dive into this discussion (yet), but to clarify: The Discord server does not require authentication, though almost all long time users do so. Everything (but the noted admin area, similar to the IRC admin channels) is visible without doing so. Note this is specific to the main Discord. Some language projects (i.e., not enwiki) DO require authentication. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to comment about the third bullet point in JSS's opening post, about whether it is appropriate to email ArbCom. In a general sense (separate from RfA specifically), community practice is to email private evidence of wrongdoing to ArbCom (or in some cases, Functionaries), with the exception of evidence about COI, where we now have a dedicated email queue. I doubt that we need ArbCom to establish another email system for RfA (although if recent events become a trend, eventually we might). Given that, and given that ArbCom does have a specified role for admin wrongdoing, I see nothing wrong with expecting that such evidence must be submitted privately to ArbCom when brought up in RfA discussions (although perhaps we need an RfC to make that a requirement). The problem I see with that is that there is generally a need for a prompt response during an RfA, and ArbCom tends not to be prompt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This, to me, is the crtux of the issue we are seeing before our eyes right now. A few users are opposing based on a few completely inncuous comments at an off-wiki site, basically because "admins can't do that, at all, ever, no matter what it is they say, and if they do they are complicit in literally everything else that goes on in the entire forum". I feel like this is an attempt at creating a chilling effect where users are meant to be afraid to be critical on these forums, or to comment in them at all. How are RFA particpants to judge this opposition when, currently, we apparently can't even say where it is? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt that this is something that is causing worthy RfAs to go down in failure. We've always had opposes at RfA that happen, cause angst, but don't sink the candidate. Editors familiar with what happened elsewhere can say whether or not they think there was a real problem, and other editors can decide for themselves who to believe or not believe. That's what I did in my support: . (Where I also used a three-letter acronym, uh-oh!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a seperate issue, I have just filed an WP:ARCA request for the committee to clarify some policy points related to how or even if we are allowed to discuss these things on-wiki. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course we can discuss things in general. A specific outing of someone is not appropriate. But if they have outed themselves, then they gave away the right to that privacy. But the committee can make their own pronouncements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanna link to the snotty thing JSS just said about me at that other site. { --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The obvious solution is to drop the charade. If Wikipedia editors are talking about Wikipedia, on a public forum, devoted to commentary of Wikipedia, using an account that is clearly linked to their Wikipedia account, then we should be able to discuss it openly here on Wikipedia. It's not outing, not "logging", not a copyright violation, or any of the other ridiculous, self-serving excuses that people have come up with for this taboo over the years. ArbCom has no role to play: their remit isn't "off-wiki evidence", it's matters unsuitable for public discussion, and what we're talking about here is already under "public discussion", by definition. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe: Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't believe there's any authentication between that other forum and on-wiki unless it's admitted on-wiki, since we can't exactly trust that someone is the same person on that site just based on the user name alone. The community Discord however does have a bot that authenticates you as an on-wiki user. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge there's never been an example of someone impersonating an editor on Wikipediocracy to get them into trouble on Wikipedia. If that ever did happen, I imagine the matter would be very quickly resolved by the target saying "that's not me". Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that people are who they say they are, authentication process or not. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was impersonated on Wikipediocracy on January 2, 2024. A thread was started by someone with the same name as me impersonating me. It may be more common than you think. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That assumes that the target keeps up with all the many sub-"forum" pages on WPO, which surely at most only a handful of people do, and they wouldn't be the ones to be impersonated. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to note one other thing - some active participants on Discord (including myself) don't have a Wikipedia account to link, so there's no way to tell for sure that the person behind this IP at the moment is the same person named Tarlonniel over on Discord, beyond taking my word for it. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. So long as the current consensus on Discord chat logs remains in force, mention of them must be avoided entirely instead of using an actual live RfA's !oppose section to re-litigate it by bringing up veiled accusations that stick to the letter of the Discord Logs RfC but not its spirit, no matter if one thinks it's just a charade, or ridiculous, or self-serving, or any such adjective one can think up. Any change to that consensus should be sought in a new RfC.
 * Personally I will disclose any of my Wikimedia Discord messages to whoever asks, and I won't be opposed to being able to link to messages on the server so long as the users are authenticated. But that is me. Community consensus is that people would rather keep their Discord comments private. Change that first.
 * 2. Yes lol, the English Wikimedia Discord server enforces enwiki's own civility rules far more actively than enwiki itself. Blocked users aren't allowed to harp on their blocks and How Much They Hate Wikipedia day in and day out, unlike WPO where that is the express purpose.
 * 3. If community consensus is something worth respecting, then given the current consensus, emailing ArbCom is the only way to bring up problematic Discord messages. Of course, if consensus shifts to allow Discord logs to be posted publicly, this will be moot.
 * Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 09:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's say I send you an email, out of the blue, saying Hi Wilhelm Tell, I think you're stupid, but please don't tell anyone else. Best wishes, Joe. And then some years later, you're asked to be on a committee to decide whether I should be given the Friendliest Wikipedian Award. Are you not going to mention the email, because I would "prefer to keep it private"? Oh and remember you can't just vote against me without saying why, because if you try the other members will accuse you of malfeasance and argue for you to be ejected from the committee. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't this what Arbcom is for? You can just email your evidence of off-wiki harassment, then disclose the fact that you emailed them when explaining you vote? Because, in this specific situation, to prove that the person said what they said (and that you didn't just lie) you'd have to give out some pretty private information that would have to go through Arbcom anyway. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But what is ArbCom supposed to do with it? Wilhelm Tell is upset with my vote here. I could have appended "which I've notified ArbCom of" to the first clause (because, as a matter of fact, I have, several times), but what difference would it have made? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ArbCom will evaluate the nature of the comments then? And they can decide whether or not to block the editor based on the evidence of offwiki abuse, thus preventing their election...? Also, I'm not upset, I only think community consensus should be respected in both letter and spirit, even if you think it's stupid. I reiterate that I will be fine with the Wikimedia Discord being linkable, I don't think we're disagreeing there. Also, if you did send me such a mail, I would be quite amused. You can try it out now ~ Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 10:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI In the context of a time-limited RFA, it seems pertinent to note that ArbCom moves at a very slow pace. Mach61 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This makes me wonder - what was the timeline of Icewhiz/Eostrix being blocked during his RfA? Was Arbcom informed or someone else? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 13:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that ArbCom enacted the block during the RfA, but ArbCom had been in the process of investigating the Eostrix account for some time prior to the beginning of the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're mostly right; we had flagged the account earlier in the year as a potential sock, but the RFA was really the impetus for finally making the connection. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If, hypothetically, the account had not been flagged earlier, but was flagged right around the beginning of the RfA, would ArbCom have been able to work it out within the time-frame of the RfA? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably, especially if we asked for assistance from the CU team. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Decide whether or not the candidate violated the specific policies you named in your vote? It's not perfect, but it's the best system we got. I always did prefer the story about the giant bug to the one about the court, anyway. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * there is a rather large gulf between 'something that stops me supporting an RfA' and 'off-wiki harassment meriting an ArbCom block'. Unlike user conduct forums—which is where the 'send it to ArbCom' rule comes from—you don't have to point to a specific policy violation or disruptive behaviour in an RfA. Editors are perfectly entitled oppose a candidate because they just don't think they'll be a good admin, don't like them, and/or get bad vibes – whether that's based on interactions on- or off-wiki. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in your vote, and nor have I expressed one. You asked a question about a hypothetical scenario. I answered. I am beginning to suspect that the question was rhetorical. Was it? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about my vote specifically, I'm talking about RfA in general. My hypothetical question was supposed to be an analogy for RfA, because this is a discussion about RfA on WT:RFA, but sorry if the use of a counterfactual scenario confused things. (It was also, incidentally, directed specifically at Wilhelm). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll freely admit I don't know of an effective way to oppose the Discord logs consensus in the oppose section of an RfA. But I do know you shouldn't be opposing the Discord logs consensus by breaking it. It appears to me the better course of action would be a fresh RfC. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 12:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) P.S. A wise person once said if something seems systemically broken on Wikipedia, that may be on purpose, to prevent you from doing what you wanted to do in the first place.
 * Caveat: I speak only in terms of WP:Discord, and not in general of usage of Discord outside of that specific server. Community consensus is that people would rather keep their Discord comments private. I don't think this is the consensus at all. It's certainly not why I !voted the way I did in the RFC, and anyone who believes that their Discord messages are private is very very sorely mistaken. Joe can call it ridiculous, self-serving excuses if he likes, but I based my position on my reading of the policies and community expectations as I understood them at the time. However, the Discord server has long stated up front (prior to the RFC), both on it's project page and its Server Guide / Info channel, that the messages posted are public and can be read by anyone that joins. The RFC is a silly result that comes from how our policies/guidelines are written. I've noted this in the ARCA as well, but some people take OUTING so far as to suggest mentioning personal details on the userpages of an editor on another Wikimedia project is forbidden. That's obviously silly as well, in the post-SUL world at least. My personal hope is some guidance at ARCA results in some clarification that can then be channeled to a new RFC, that at least takes the Discord question out of this equation. I have no comment on WPO. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I should clarify by "private" I meant that community consensus seemed to be that people didn't want Discord chat logs linked here. Obviously anyone can click on the invite and see every message since 2016. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * speaking to question 2: i'm very active on the discord, and i've found some of the comments at Elli's RfA about the discord to be really far out of whack with what it's actually like on there. the moderators are, to their credit, very proactive in shutting down even a hint of misbehavior, to the point where it can even be a bit over-bearing occasionally. the abundance of caution on the part of the moderation team, especially where eg canvassing is concerned, is in part a reaction to what the server used to be like, as well as the history of off-wiki shenanigans that have landed at ArbCom's doorstep over the past 2 decades. for those not on the discord or not aware of the rules there, one is generally not allowed to even neutrally link an ongoing RfC/XfD/etc or even discuss an active RfA at all. doing such is usually shut down by whoever's active in the chat at the time, whether moderators are there or not - in other words, the discord community does a good job of self-moderating against canvassing (or even the appearance of canvassing) without the moderators needing to enforce it themselves. the prohibition of discussing ongoing RfAs is particularly well-enforced in the wake of Vami_IV's passing, and some of the very difficult RfAs that members of the server have gone through previously. basically, the discord community wants to avoid adding more stress to an already stressful process. now, i'm not active on WPO and never have been, but this to me seems like basically the exact opposite. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  20:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)