WP:SAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SAFE

Jake Orlowitz is writing it.

It is a blueprint for how to dox. If you have forgotten anything, this is your handy checklist.

Does anyone think the newbies will read it?  Or even if they did read it, that they would be able to understand it?

Does anyone think that anyone dangerous will read it?

Don’t forget the part about requesting a special user exemption thingy if you are in a dangerous area. You send it to somewhere, linking your user name, email and real name, and they give you something-or-other that lets you edit through some kind of local block. Then, in case you were editing from inside the borders of a repressive regime, and you have been flying under the radar so far, this will connect the dots for the government internet interceptors, and make it even easier for them to identify you.

Oh and if you have any money, be sure to tell everyone where it is hidden.  Same principle.

Didn’t Maggie just tell us the WMF can NOT keep you safe, the only effective strategy is to not edit.

~~~~

Just adding that in case anyone doesn’t know, the guy writing this, Jake Orlowitz, is an admin on English Wikipedia and a former WMF staffer, although he does not seem to be one of the ones who was generally loathed. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ocaasi_(WMF)

A few details about his essay.

‘This page in a nutshell: Protect yourself by following common-sense best practices honed by those who are at higher risk while editing.”

Honed by…who? He seems to be saying that he, as a white male, former staffer, and current admin, is somehow “at higher risk”. A big ‘citation needed’ on that one. I do know that some women once tried to give him some input about harassment and he blew them off. So who knows if he consulted anyone but himself on the essay… The guy was very very good at getting people to open their library memberships, good at talking to people, convincing people. This is what he did, and that is probably still what he is about.

“If you are unsafe

• • If you encounter harassing behavior on-wiki, contact an administrator privately, via email”

Hahahaha.

No.

If you are being harassed, there is a very good chance the person doing it is an admin.  They provably do not know anything about harassment, and what it is, or have any interest in it,  much less stopping it.

• You can also privately reach out to the Arbitration Committee

Again, ha ha ha, but this is even less funny.

They will not answer.

They will not follow up.

Not unless you are a white male and an admin and a WMF staffer.

Check this user block log, and tell me how many arbitrators you see. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AEric+Corbett

Okay, you didn’t get to the end of it, did you. I guess that is my point.

The essay is not for garden variety users, although it does have some interesting points.  In fact, I would recommend you read it. But the whole thing is pretty much “Citation needed”. I don’t think they have any information about what goes on at Trust & Safety, or how many people have been damaged by editing Wikipedia. That area is pretty much a black hole as far as information getting out, especially in the area of possible staff screwups.

So the essay remains as advice for white males, by white males, written by the most privileged group in Wikipedia who for some reason believe they are “at higher risk”.

Why this user, and why now? And where are all the admins who were supposedly trained on some kind of harassment thingy. There was some prototype, then nothing.

So what would my advice be?

Your best bet is to edit with a group, a group that you trust, and this will probably not mean random admins or WMF staffers.

If you must report something, report it to the WMF. Trust & Safety has a contact email which is presumably monitored by multiple people, so your chances of getting screwed over are less, but definitely not approaching zero..

Otherwise don’t put anything in writing, your best bet is face to face communication. You want more detail? Ask me face to face.

But we already know that no one listens to women.