User:Ivanvector/2019 Arbitration Committee protest

This is a statement regarding recent actions of the 2019 Arbitration Committee, and a response to these actions.

Over the course of the 2019 Committee term, several incidents have occurred which call into question the Committee's understanding of the policy governing its operation and purpose. These incidents have created an environment of confusion among administrators who are tasked with enforcing Committee directives which conflict with community policies, with the understanding that administrators who act contrary to a Committee directive face removal of their advanced permissions, even when such action is supported by policy. As the 2019 Committee continues to make such directives, the situation is untenable.

In response, I have decided to protest the 2019 Committee, demanding that all active members resign immediately and a new election is held. Until such time as this occurs, I am refusing to act in an administrative capacity in any area subject to an Arbitration Committee directive: primarily enforcement of discretionary sanctions and use of the CheckUser tool. I invite other administrators concerned with the Committee's ongoing breaches of the limit of their authority to join this protest.

Incidents

Deletion as a discretionary sanction

In February 2019, an administrator acting in good faith deleted a user page containing criticism of Wikipedia, citing arbitration enforcement as a rationale. The deletion was reviewed, and as is normal for deletion reviews, another administrator acting in good faith restored the deleted page for the discussion. At an arbitration enforcement appeal a third administrator threatened the restoring administrator with desysopping, an expected remedy for disregarding an Arbitration Committee directive.

A separate clarification request was filed over the incident. Several editors (including myself) observed that the community's deletion policy explicitly details the permissible situations in which administrators may delete a page, and that deletion as arbitration enforcement is not included in that policy and thus not permitted. The policy further specifies the procedure by which editors may request review of an administrator's decision to delete, which had been followed in this case. Several members of the Committee insisted that arbitration discretionary sanctions permit any action including page deletion, regardless of community policy. The Committee as a whole directed that administrators may justify any action as arbitration enforcement, and that any action justified in this way must be appealed to the Committee directly rather than following the established community processes. A motion to that effect was endorsed by nine arbitrators and opposed by none.

The community's deletion review expressly overturned the deletion, but due to uncertainty regarding the Committee's interference the contents of the page remained blanked. The page was later deleted for a second time, citing the failed enforcement appeal, retroactively applying the Committee's motion.

Requiring specific measures for account security

In May 2019, following a series of compromised administrator accounts, the Committee issued a notice to all administrators reminding of the administrators policy requirement to secure one's account. Policy and established practice for compromised accounts is that advanced permissions are temporarily removed until it is confirmed that the user's account is secure, at which time the bureaucrats will restore permissions at their own discretion. In practice the determination is made by the Arbitration Committee working with the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team, but the Committee's notice suggested that permissions would not be restored unless the compromised user met specific requirements of the Committee, including enabling two-factor authentication (2FA). Many administrators complained that the notice appeared to be a directive from the Committee to enable 2FA or face removal of permissions, and observed that the notion of mandatory 2FA has been considered numerous times by the community and rejected each time, as recently as two weeks earlier. In discussion it was revealed that the Committee was already imposing these requirements on compromised accounts, overstepping their authority and with no policy or community support.

Several Committee members responded to concerned administrators with insistence that policy had always supported the Arbitration Committee unilaterally making determinations of account security, and at least one arbitrator personally attacked a dissenting administrator. Many responding administrators (myself included) observed that an administrator desysopped in this way would be unlikely to be reconfirmed by the community owing to the black mark resulting from such a desysopping, and as such the Committee was stating their intent to desysop compromised accounts by fiat.

As more members of the community expressed dissatisfaction with the Committee's action, the arbitrators issued an apology for the original messaging, but maintained the direction that the Committee would consider not restoring the permissions of compromised accounts that did not meet the Committee's own determination of security including enabling 2FA, against policy and against consensus.

Response and protest

As a result of these actions, it is apparent that this Committee is comfortable pursuing its own agenda without any indication of support from the community nor from established policies, and will continue to enact proclamations of this sort without seeking input or consent of the community. This indicates that the Committee does not intend to act in the best interests of the community which elects its members. The Committee has overstepped its community-derived powers, and cannot thus be considered to enjoy the support of the community.

In response, as an administrator with a responsibility to defend Wikipedia from disruptive influences, I am protesting the 2019 Arbitration Committee. This protest takes the form of a refusal to exercise any administrative authority in any area of Wikipedia subject to a specific directive of the Arbitration Committee, including but not limited to topics subject to discretionary sanctions such as biographies of living persons, and use of the checkuser tool.

I pledge to withdraw this protest upon the resignation of all current members of the Arbitration Committee, and/or the holding of new Arbitration Committee elections.