Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Background[edit]

On 10 June 2019, an English Wikipedia administrator was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of 1 year. A large community discussion followed, which included various statements by stakeholders, including the Trust & Safety department of the WMF, the Arbitration Committee, the Board of Trustees, and the CEO of the WMF.

Using materials provided to them by WMF, the Arbitration Committee opened a case to investigate the matter on 24 July 2019. In its final decision posted on 21 September 2019, the Arbitration Committee vacated the ban set by the WMF, took over the decision to remove the editor's administrator tools, and established that a Request for Comment would be opened to "focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future."

Overview[edit]

In the open letter from the Arbitration Committee to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, we asked that the WMF commit to leaving behavioral complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes. We also acknowledged that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection, and pledged to solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy.

In this RfC we are seeking feedback from the community to inform potential changes to ArbCom policy and procedure, which will be developed with input from the Wikimedia Foundation. Any amendments to arbitration policy will go through the standard ratification and amendment process before being implemented.

Participating in this RfC[edit]

In contributing to this RfC, please use common sense in referring to specific past examples of harassment without the consent of the victims in those examples, as commenting here may attract new attention to an old, now-stable situation. Please do not use this space to make new accusations of harassment. This is a brainstorming session, so please contribute ideas freely; endorsing an idea or pointing out potential concerns is fine, but please refrain from bolded votes.

Although we have chosen to have this discussion in the form of an RfC and not a case, arbitrators and the ArbCom clerks will be maintaining this page as we would a case. We will strictly enforce here the behavioral expectations at an ArbCom case, and remove or move discussion that is determined to be off-topic. If you object to a clerk action on this page, do not undo it; rather, contact the Arbitration Committee or clerk team by email to request reconsideration. Disruption at this page may result in you being banned from participation.

To keep the length of this RfC manageable, we ask that you not add new discussion sections directly. If you believe there is an important area of discussion that has not been covered, please request it be added by the arbitrators by posting your proposed text on the RfC talk page.

Request for Comment[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this RFC the community was asked to weigh in on 8 topics of concern regarding Wikipedia editors ("editors"), the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), Trust & Safety (T&S), and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). There were common themes presented across some of the questions, so if a related question contains similar themes that will be indicated in parentheses (e.g. "Q1"). Please note that while there may be proposals listed that arose during this discussion, any significant/policy changes to ArbCom must go through the standard processes as described in the Overview.

One of the overarching themes of responses to the questions was that ArbCom will always be under some form of scrutiny or displeasure from certain areas of the community. However, since they were elected to be trusted members of the community, they should do their best knowing that a majority of users supported their term when they were elected (Q1). However, that does not mean they should be entirely absent from ArbCom proceedings (Q6) or jump too quickly to conclusions when it comes to the presumption of innocence (Q5).

Q1, on the matter of private evidence impacting sanctions
ArbCom, by its very nature, will occasionally have cases that involve private evidence - be it email correspondence or links to off-wiki websites - that cannot be publicly displayed in the public-facing case evidence. This private evidence is of most concern when it is the sole (or majority) reason for a case being opened and/or sanctions being filed; multiple examples were given where the results of a case were given without one being formally opened on-wiki, or where supposedly "private" information was actually present in diffs on-wiki the entire time.
While many agreed that private evidence should stay private, there were a few main suggestions regarding how ArbCom should deal with private information:
  • ArbCom should disclose if/when private information is being used to inform the case
  • ArbCom should "categorise" any private evidence so interested parties would know the provenance of said information
  • ArbCom should open a public case report, even if the evidence is 100% private, so that editors are aware that a discussion is taking place
  • ArbCom should only use private information when absolutely necessary - if sanctions and/or findings of fact can be based on public/on-wiki evidence, then that should be prioritised (Q2)

Q2, on fear of retaliation
To summarize multiple editors' opinions in this section, "there is no easy solution" to the issue of retaliation as a result of harassment and subsequent case filing. That being said, many of the editors agreed that if the information is public then the case should be handled publicly and not behind closed doors (Q1). Additionally, admins should be more willing to do what is necessarily “lower down” in places like ANI, and bump cases to ArbCom after these interventions are shown to be ineffective (Q7). While there was a suggestion for some form of intermediate location for cases to be handled between ANI and ArbCom, there was no significant agreement on what that should look like; among the ideas were bringing back RFC/U, having some form of formal mediation process between the users (Q8), or having the functionaries act as some form of private investigators vetting private information before it reaches ArbCom.
One supported suggestion was to allow third-party filings to ArbCom in an effort to minimize retaliation on the harassed/concerned editor.

Q3, on responding to allegations
This question follows on rather heavily from Q2, but focused more on the accused rather than the complainant. Many editors agreed that evidence should not be kept secret from the accused, except when it comes down to the safety of the complainant; if there are specific threats and/or information that could be used in retaliation, T&S should be contacted first (Q8). If there is private information, the complainant should be asked what information they would be willing to release publicly.
While the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" (Q5) was used a lot, significantly more people indicated that we (Wikipedia or ArbCom) are not a legal system, and so that should not be assumed; principles, not any specific rule or formulae should be used in relation to the accused. However, it was felt that there is an imbalance between accuser and accused, and that mediation (Q2, Q8) may be helpful to level that imbalance.

Q4, on unsubstantiated claims
This question had a fairly straight-forward consensus; all editors should be treated with respect and politeness, but there is nothing either the community or ArbCom can do to interrupt the "unpleasant dynamic" of unsubstantiated complaints and filings. A certain amount of "tough skin" is needed to edit Wikipedia, but ArbCom should not be used as therapy.

Q5, on plausible deniability
As mentioned in Q3, there is no "right" to a presumption of innocence. That being said, there was expressed a concern that there should not be any sanction unless there is a clear violation of policy; off-wiki links with no verification should be treated carefully. As every case is different, it is difficult if not impossible to write "rules" around this issue; ArbCom should use common sense and deal with limited available evidence on a case-by-case basis

Q6, on the arbitration environment
There was a fairly consistent response to this question advocating for more/better patrolling of ArbCom proceedings, in particular by the clerks. This includes word limits, lack of diffs (especially when accusations are made), and civility/arguing concerns; clerks should also be doing a better job of communicating with those who have "broken" the rules to get clarifications and/or indicate that their edits were removed for technical/procedural reasons rather than any sort of "point of view" suppression.
One supported proposal was to have ArbCom cases written in "c2:DocumentMode", where a case is presented more like an article (with clerks summarizing and updating a single document) and less like a half-threaded discussion between members (which can become heated/unproductive)

Q7, on unblockables
Much like Q2, there is no clear definition or easy solution to "unblockables"; everyone is cantankerous at some point, and we should all be treated equally. Opinions were highly variable, including many that felt there are no changes needed or that everything should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but the following were some of the most prevalent suggestions among the participants:
  • Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced
  • Blocks should be handed out more frequently, but only as short-term blocks
  • Users with multiple (but un-sanctioned) cases at ANI, and/or those with lengthy block logs, should be looked at by ArbCom
  • More admin cases should be brought before ArbCom

Q8, on the relationship with T&S
Editors strongly feel that en-wiki issues should be handled "in-house", and only matters that affect the real world (Q2, Q3) should be passed to T&S. A better/improved dialogue between ArbCom and the WMF is also desired, with the Foundation and T&S passing along en-wiki-specific information to ArbCom to handle.
There was a desire from some editors, expressed in this section as well in previous sections, for the WMF to hire/find/create resources and training for mediation and dispute resolution, which would hopefully mitigate some of the most prevalent civility/harassment issues present on Wikipedia.

To reiterate, this close summarizes the opinions and feelings of those who participated, and are not binding; any proposals or suggestions that change policy will still need to go through the formal procedures as outlined in the Overview.

Signed,

1. Private evidence[edit]

Many complaints related to harassment and abusive behavior involve private evidence. Most commonly this is because the alleged harasser is contacting the victim off-wiki. Sometimes there is personal context necessary to understand a pattern of behavior occurring in public. Existing community processes refer people with private complaints to ArbCom. However, in the past it has been very common that acting on these complaints and sanctioning community members based on them proves highly controversial, often prompting extensive discussion requesting more transparency. Negative features of these conversations include speculating unproductively on the victim's identity or the nature of the harassment, attempting to identify misbehavior in the victim's edit history, accusing arbitrators of abusing their power or having political motives, and making rhetorical comparisons to star chambers, secret trials, various historical dictators, Kafka, Orwell, etc. These behaviors can be a disincentive for taking action on complaints, or allowing complaints to be considered privately.

How can ArbCom more effectively communicate with the community about sanctions involving private evidence?

Discussion
  • I think I agree broadly with all comments above. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC) mkes good sense. However, I think *expanding* the list of people to an enlarged pool of "functionaries" is much less preferable to the creation of a special pool of people tasked with reviewing submissions of private evidence. This means more oversighters, but not all oversighters are tasked with reviewing submissions of privates evidence of harassment.
This pool of people responsible for reviewing private evidence of harassment.
  • Call them "Private evidence reviewers". Play down the "investigation" word. Of course, they have to do some investigation, but they should not become professional investigators.
  • They all require oversight permission.
  • They do not include any current arbs. Instead, the reviewers supply the arbs with the reviewed evidence deemed appropriate for ArbCom consideration.
  • They take a pseudo-legal approach, not a wiki-political approach. ArbCom plays the public politics, private evidence reviewers are to keep out of public discussions.
The use of private evidence must be limited by natural justice. If anybody is to be judged and penalised on the basis of private evidence, they have a natural right to see and respond to that evidence. In the practice of real world dispute resolution, the solution for this is for a mediator to never assert the truth of any private evidence, but to privately challenge the accused on what is known about their behavior, what they would do in certain (hypothetical (based on the alleged)) situations, and to elicit commitments to future behavior. Their commitment to future behavior becomes WP:ROPE.
ArbCom is particularly ill-suited to playing the role of mediator using private evidence. By being elected, they are wiki-political, and can be reasonably demanded in public to explain particular ArbCom actions. Better to separate ArbCom from private evidence reviewers, don't have Arbs ever engage privately directly with someone they are judging. If they have done, that is a reason to recuse. ArbCom can accept private evidence, preferably via the reviewers, but they must not engage directly with complainants in private channels.
How can ArbCom more effectively communicate with the community about sanctions involving private evidence?
Answer: By separating themselves from the private evidence correspondence and testing of that evidence. Only then can they be open on honest about what information influenced their decision.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@SmokeyJoe: To clarify: Under this proposal, Arbs would not have any direct access to nonpublic evidence, and would only deal with it via public summaries put together by the reviewers? --Yair rand (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]
The Arbs may receive any private evidence/information that the "Private evidence reviewers" choose to provide to them. Ideally, the "Private evidence reviewers" will filter out the irrelevant information. The Arbs will not have any direct access to the providers of the nonpublic evidence; the Arbs will not correspond directly in private with people making private complaints or supplying nonpublic information, and will not personally investigate the truth or value of the supplied nonpublic information. Instead, the Arbs might ask their colleagues, the "Private evidence reviewers" to investigate, maybe to challenge the supplier of private information on apparent inconsistencies, if appropriate and necessary to be done privately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@SmokeyJoe: I do like this idea if the communication between the "private evidence reviewers" and ArbCom happens on the case pages. But if the "private evidence reviewers" can submit evidence privately to ArbCom, I fear it would only shuffle responsibility around without really resolving the trust issues. After all, in the Fram case WMF effectively wound up in this "private evidence reviewer with a private communications channel" role, and we see how well that turned out. Anomie⚔ 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]
User:Anomie. Interesting point. Yes, maybe. My experience and knowledge of real life dispute resolution does not speak to your point, but it makes sense. The devil will be in the details. Private evidence reviewers must not pass the evidence in secret? They can’t reveal what the private evidence is, because that will reveal what was private. Should they summarise? Should they state a minimum fact: eg. “Private evidence has been received and passed to the Arbs”. This does not cross my main point, which is that the people who will pass judgement (the arbs) should not be the ones investigating private evidence, let alone negotiating with private evidence suppliers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[]
At a minimum they should announce that private evidence has been received and that the oversighter considers it to be both valid and relevant and of acceptable provenance. The Arbs should be in a position to cross check provenance if they consider it necessary, and should be able to call on other oversighters to do so. I think the choice of whether or not a summary is provided for public consumption should be left to Arbcom, and similarly any explanation of why a summary should not be published should be up to Arbcom. This is a thing the clerks could handle? Having the oversighters validate evidence at a remove from Arbcom partly solves the issue of quis custodiet ipsos custodes. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[]

2. Fear of retaliation[edit]

In some cases, a harassment complaint is based entirely on the public behavior of the alleged harasser and has no private component. Traditionally, complaints with no relevant private evidence are referred to on-wiki processes. However, some complainants are uncomfortable with this because they fear retaliation by the subject of the complaint or by people associated with them. This is also a common dynamic in cases of chronic incivility or long-term low-level problem behavior.

What can the community do to make on-wiki spaces where harassment is reported (AN, ANI, etc) less unpleasant? Would the community support having select examples of this problem handled privately by ArbCom instead? If so, how and which ones? How should complaints of chronic incivility be handled if the behavior doesn't rise to the level of harassment?

Discussion
@MJL: Something like that existed for a long time at WP:RFC/U, but it was shut down in favour of dispute resolution through ANI and ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Joe Roe: I was aware of that process, yes. However, what I have in mind would seek to have a lower barrier to file reports, allow users to report themselves for generalized feedback (not all discussions need be negative), solely focus on the user being discussed, and have binding results. Many users during the WP:RFC/U abolition discussion expressed an interest for the creation of such a forum. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]
While I think a revived and improved RFC/U might have a good place in dispute resolution, I don't think it would be a good answer to the problem raised in this section. If an accuser is afraid to bring a case to ArbCom for fear of retaliation, I can't see them being any more comfortable bringing one up at RFC/U. Anomie⚔ 16:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]

3. Opportunity to respond to allegations[edit]

Arbitration policy specifies that for complaints being heard in private, "The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made." However, it would often be possible for an accused harasser to identify the complainant based on the substance of the allegation.

In cases where a complainant fears possible retaliation, how should the ArbCom balance allowing an alleged harasser the opportunity to respond to allegations while protecting victims' privacy and safety?

Discussion
Pls do not forget that "going to the court" is a purely US-based notion. In most other countries, including highly civilized ones, one can not go to the court for this kind of offences. I recently received threats related to my Wikipedia activity as admin, and the police said they could not do anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Valereee: please take severe mental illness into account, and recognize that there are cases where ANY information revealed does expose the target to further danger. Please let's not set up something that leaves a victim no choice but to vanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    SandyGeorgia, I'm not following...how would a category of trusted user who could see the evidence so as to help an accused mount their defense cause any more risk to the accuser than having ArbCom see the evidence? —valereee (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Valereee: perhaps I am misunderstanding your proposal (as in, which party is which, and which you are referring to as the "accused")? But I have already said too much here. If the stalker/accused is mentally ill, and needs to be blocked as well as desysopped, then the arbs are involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    SandyGeorgia, my proposal is if someone who has been accused of harassment (the 'accused') cannot be given for whatever reason the opportunity to see the evidence themselves, we assign an advocate who can review the evidence as an advocate for the accused. These "advocates" should be people the community have decided can be trusted with confidential information. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Valereee: OK, I earlier misunderstood you. Yes, that works, except if the stalker is an admin, ArbCom will be involved anyway. And we can't globally designate such people, because when the matter is extremely sensitive, few people will want to talk to a "stranger". In my case, the arbs were also the people I trusted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    @SandyGeorgia and Valereee: Feel free to correct me, but I think that you may still be talking past each other. My understanding of Valereee's suggestion is that it would work something like this:
    1. Arbcom receives a private complaint based on private evidence, and after review determines the complaint is not baseless.
    2. Arbcom appoints someone (probably an oversighter, maybe someone else who agrees to keep everything secret) to represent the accused. That appointee examines the evidence, and presents the accused's case on their behalf.
    3. Arbcom considers the evidence and arguments, and reaches a decision on the merits.
    If this is what Valereee is proposing, I think it would be a good idea, or a minimum, I don't think it would hurt.Reconsidering this --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Mdaniels5757:, if that is the proposal, I would opt out and would have left Wikipedia, because yes, it could hurt. Now, if you alter #2 to be someone both ArbCom and I trust, it could work in general. I'd like to stop commenting on this. @Risker, Casliber, and Newyorkbrad: (who might not want to comment either, but I hope that in general certain voices will be heard wrt certain circumstances that go beyond the current cases, so that we don't hamstring others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    Fair enough. Thank you for your response. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    Mdaniels5757, yes, that's the process I was thinking ADD: but with the accused being able to choose their advocate from a list of trusted users. SandyGeorgia, I see this as a completely optional step for those who want it, not as something that would be forced on anyone. —valereee (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
    SandyGeorgia, my original explanation included The accused could be allowed to choose from a list of such trusted users someone they also personally trust —valereee (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Only in death and Beyond My Ken: I would like to point out that decision not to show Fram the full evidence was not ArbCom's. We didn't see the full evidence, and we were contractually obligated, under the non-disclosure agreement that we're required to sign to be on the committee, not to share what the WMF did send us. During and after the case, there was a strong consensus amongst the remaining members of the 2019 committee that that situation was untenable and should never be repeated. However, under ARBPOL, we still have the responsibility to handle private complaints somehow. That conflict is one of the main reasons we organised this RfC. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Beyond My Ken: I will (and have) admit to many mistakes we made with the Fram case. However, even with a year of hindsight, I can't say that I consider accepting the case to be one of them. At the time, it was made clear to us that if we wouldn't take the T&S evidence redacted and under a non-disclosure agreement, there would be no community review of the office action. Not only would that have been even more unfair to Fram—who would now still be banned for what we concluded were unjustified reasons—but it would undermine the strong statement we made in our open letter: that enwiki has the right and capacity to handle harassment complaints internally. Also recall that we only accepted T&S' conditions after obtaining the compromise that we could pass an anonymised summary of the private complaints to him, which I still maintain contained all the salient information in the document to which we ourselves had access. The case we ended up with was, absolutely, procedurally flawed and unfair to Fram, but looking at the bigger picture I think we did the best we could at asserting enwiki's self-governance whilst not totally burning bridges with the WMF (which would have been even more damaging to our self-governance in the long term).
In any case, whilst I see the value in dissecting what went wrong with Fram, the point of this RfC is more to figure out how we can deal with private cases better and avoid it happening again. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Fair enough, and I've already expressed my opinions in the various sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I find it unusual, if not frightening, that the accused can be denied access to the details of the accusation, because that can lead to anonymous character assassination being the rule. Some onus has to be borne by the accuser to prove their case. The community at large might not have to be apprised of the titillating details, but accusations of wrongdoing can't be completely anonymous. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Wugapodes: But their job is to remove painful people, not to remove those who might not, or would not, were more transparency and fairness in place. Very few, if any, of the participants above advise an absolutionist approach, with all information shared, in all circumstances. But being blocked when evidence might indicate otherwise is its own form of abuse. Insufficient sharing of information limits not merely a defence an individual might make on the information provided at that point, but also seals off evidence arbs may not be aware of. Additionally, any reduction in fairness on the site does damage well in excess of the loss of those incorrectly blocked. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Nosebagbear: I don't think I understand what you mean by the first sentence? But beyond that, I agree that many of the comments above are well considered, but I disagree that they correctly appeal to due process as a value in this consideration because we cannot achieve due process—doing so requires us making guarantees we simply cannot make, and we must work within that reality. States can guarantee high levels of fairness in proceedings because they can violently suppress those who threaten a fair hearing for both sides. We do not have that ability, and as a result pursuing "fairness" without regard for all aspects of due process actually makes the system less fair. If we cannot guarantee the safety of reporters, we are less likely to get reports and so abusive editors are more likely to continue their behavior; how is that fair? If we get fewer reports, the few we do get only show part of the picture so abusive editors are less likely to be sanctioned; how is that fair? If we cannot guarantee freedom from reprisal, we likely will receive less evidence and so sanctions will be weaker if they occur at all; how is that fair? If there are sanctions and we provide enough evidence to identify a reporter, we cannot guarantee safety from reprisal by the sanctioned editor or their allies; how is that fair? These are all protections governments can guarantee through imprisonment, orders enforced by armed agents of the state, or relocation and protection of witnesses following trial. We can offer none of these, and it is unfair to guarantee a level of protection to abusive editors that we cannot guarantee to reporters.
Due process guarantees fairness for both sides, and focusing on whether we're being fair to the accused without due regard for whether we're being fair to reporters subverts the principle of due process which we're supposedly trying to uphold. Even governmental systems acknowledge that in some instances, due process requires us to accept some false positives in order to guarantee fair outcomes (in aggregate) for both sides of a dispute. This is why civil trials and administrative hearings have evidentiary standards other than reasonable doubt such as clear and convincing or preponderance of evidence. For the sake of argument, even if we can agree that this constitutes "reduction in fairness", I still fundamentally disagree with your conclusion for three reasons: (1) you have provided no reason to believe that we risk a spate of unjust blocks unless we give unfettered access to evidence—in fact the case that brings us here is an example of the exact opposite: an unjust block was removed despite limited chance to respond to evidence; (2) the WMF has already shown a willingness to intervene if we fail to design a process that adequately handles harassment and abuse, and the harms of the WMF having to step in should this supposedly fair system continue to protect abusive editors are significantly greater than the harms you insinuate; and (3) we are already experiencing significant harm by protecting abusive editors who scare potential new editors away from the project, and any benefit we gain from protecting abusive editors is outweighed by the continuing harm we have in editor recruitment and retention.
If we want to make progress on this problem and retain community control, we need to go deeper than surface-level arguments about what due process means in criminal procedure and consider our actual material position. We do not have the means to act like a government; and the issues at stake are far less than at any judicial proceeding. Being fair to everyone requires us to acknowledge and act on that basic fact. We, intentionally or unintentionally, protect from sanctions editors whose behavior would be unacceptable in any other workplace; yet we pretend that the harms of being kicked from a volunteer encyclopedia organization are as drastice as imprisonment or loss of income. I simply cannot buy arguments about what constitutes fairness which proceed from that false premise. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[]
About the only potential solution to this kind of situation is to force accused harassers to sign a version of the access to non-public information policy with their name and physical location so WMF-legal or victims can take action against people that abuse their access to the evidence against them. I expect this solution to be untenable though as it would add significant administrative burdens to the WMF and the Wikimedia community does not in general appreciate legal solutions to on-wiki problems; as well as the practical difficulties in drafting or enforcing some sort of standard for the accused in this quasi-legal process. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 08:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[]

4. Unsubstantiated complaints[edit]

In some cases an editor reports that they are being harassed, and upon investigation, the conduct in question is arguably unpleasant or rude, but is not a violation of the harassment policy. Occasionally, this is the result of a deliberately false complaint, but most often the complainant genuinely feels victimized, and is even more distressed after learning the result of the investigation. We want people to feel comfortable contributing to Wikipedia even if they make mistakes; likewise we want people to feel comfortable correcting mistakes even if the person who made them reacts poorly.

Is there anything the community or ArbCom can do to interrupt this unpleasant dynamic? Are civility warnings appropriate for editors who are making legitimate criticisms at a frequency or in a style that the subject finds too unpleasant to deal with effectively?

Discussion
Part of that problem is identifying the level of rudeness allowed by the rules.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]
WP:civility us used as a tool to conduct harassment...it covers only superficial choice of words. It needs a broader replacement.North8000 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@North8000: What sort of replacement would you propose? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Naypta: A broader "don't abuse editors" type policy. WP:Civility should become a section within it. The theme for another section would be "Processes (such as Arbcom, wp:an, wp:ani, RFCU) should not unfairly abuse editors, and should not be used to conduct warfare. Trying to cleverly, unfairly use these venues (in combination with policies and guidelines) to "get" or deprecate someone is a common and destructive problem in Wikipedia." North8000 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@North8000: With exception to the last sentence (I think it's worth leaving out specific statements as to what is or isn't a common problem, because hopefully the aim of policy is to make sure it isn't in future a common problem) I could get behind that. I'd be in favour of something like Quora's "be nice, be respectful" policy, which is far more broadly construed than Wikipedia's current civility policy. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Naypta: You are right. I guess my thought process was too much on trying to build consciousness in that area. Wanna build an essay that would be a draft for the policy? North8000 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@North8000: I'm not sure it's much of a policy draft, but I've put some thoughts down at WP:EXCELLENT which you might be interested in reading. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Naypta:Nice! What a great way to come at it from! I'll post something at your talk page. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Based on some remarks I made on respect during last year's contretemps, I have created a draft essay along similar lines: User:Isaacl/Be respectful of others. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Isaacl: It's a very good essay - well done! I think the part of it which is most germane to what's going on here actually is You can be frank about your opinions without belittling others. Many people seem to be concerned that what people are looking for is to prevent them expressing their opinions, which is of course not the case. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Clearly, it's proven difficult to identify a precise and useful definition of conduct that is harmful but falls short of harassment. WMF has been using the word "toxicity", which has a lot of shortcomings. I've been trying for some time to come up with a better word, without success. But when I saw the word "belittling" here, that caught my attention. There is probably no single word that is similar in meaning to "incivility" while being more precise and less prone to "in the eye of the beholder", and yet also comprehensive. But "belittling" comes close, and fits well with what I've seen in cases where the community has done poorly in resolving the issue. Intentionally speaking to another editor in a way that makes them sound small or inferior is not harassment, and may not quite be a personal attack (if said skillfully), but it's very typical of the kind of conduct we need to be less accepting of. It's OK to say: "You need to know that WP:(fill in the blank) is something that is very important around here, and you really need to stop doing things the way you've been doing them." or "Maybe you don't know about the now-archived discussion at (link to talk page archive), but here's a link to it and I hope that you will take a look at it." But it's not OK to say: "I know how things work around here and you don't." or "That was a bad edit, and those of us who have been editing this page for a long time know that the right way to do it is such-and-such." And we really should not allow anyone to make fun of someone else unless it's just friendly banter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
To me "belittling" has connotations of "punching down". Incivility can involve punching up, down or sideways. I'm not so worried about incivility from those who are punching up, though yes I'm aware that sometimes both parties think they are "punching up". However there is a fine line between criticising someone's edits and belittling them, perhaps finer than between disagreeing with someone and incivilly disagreeing with someone. ϢereSpielChequers 20:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Those are good points, although I've definitely experienced belittling comments that were directed sideways at me but written as though they were punching down. Also, most instances that I can think of as punching up tend to be grosser forms of incivility, as in personal attacks, or clumsier, as in claims that Wikipedia is censored, and we usually are able to deal with those. On the other hand, if I think about the kinds of cases where en-wiki fails to adequately deal with the problem, they tend to be either punching down, or acting as if they were punching down. As a PS, something that I might have added to my previous comment is that getting upset after being goaded may sound like belittling, but really is something else, whereas the goading itself, if looked at more critically, actually is often belittling. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Although I appreciate the distinction between punching up and punching down, my essay is intended to make a broader point: we can disagree with others in the community while still being respectful of them, regardless if they might be considered in a position of greater or lesser influence. Making personal insinuations or accusations doesn't make you look better in comparison. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
What makes it impossible to manage on English Wikipedia is that the community tries to do it in a large group discussion using a consensus-like decision-making process. This is impossible without strong alignment of goals with all participants, and that in turn can't be maintained as a group grows beyond a (fairly small) size. We need to reduce the incentive for poor behaviour by making it a losing strategy for disputes. (And I know people don't like to hear this, but interpersonal issues will only get dealt with effectively by introducing some form of hierarchy.) isaacl (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Atsme: I don't think ARBCOM should be responsible for deciding our harassment policy (and adding "precision" can be done in a way that adds quite a lot of meaning), though I'd certainly (and am) paying a lot of attention to views of current and former arbs. We've made fairly clear that swearing at another editor is not permitted (though we've let several editors go with only mild rebuke at ANI when they faced serious aggravation and it was a rare outburst), but more general non-targeted swearing (e.g. "FUCK IT") has had case by case consideration. In terms of "no minimum threshold for hounding", that's disputable, not because there's a permitted level of hounding, but there are legitimate actions that are only hounding when ongoing, or at least repeated. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[]

5. Plausible deniability[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has encountered some situations in which a person was likely harassing another user, but there was some amount of plausible deniability. For example, some statements can be carefully worded so they can be claimed to not be an attack. As another example, accounts used for off-wiki harassment are not always able to be definitively tied back to an alleged Wikipedian, and the Arbitration Committee does not possess the ability to compel information from other websites that could potentially link an account more definitively. Some argue that the accused should be considered innocent until proven guilty; others believe that harassment cannot be effectively stopped when the burden of proof mirrors that of a criminal trial, but when evidence cannot be compelled in the same way.

How should the Arbitration Committee balance the presumption of innocence with the sometimes limited amount of available evidence?

Discussion

6. Arbitration environment[edit]

ArbCom cases and other pages (case requests, ARCA, etc) have historically been areas where difficult behavior is common and is somewhat tolerated to a degree, on the grounds that the parties involved in a dispute are stressed or frustrated. On the other hand, it may worsen participants' stress to be exposed to this behavior, and it may discourage submission of evidence. When clerks and arbitrators attempt to manage pages in arbitration space, they are sometimes attacked by the participants.

Should the environment in ArbCom proceedings be more closely managed? If so, how? Should this also apply to noticeboard discussions (eg WT:ACN)? How can arbitrators or clerks perform these functions without attracting commentary that they are suppressing legitimate criticism or refusing to hear a particular point of view?

Discussion
Although I very much share the view that case pages should be under more control against battleground conduct, I have to push back against the idea that stress is never a valid consideration. In the real world, with real people, unpleasant situations lead to stress. We cannot expect editors to be anything other than real people. On the one hand, someone who is habitually disruptive should not be able to habitually hide behind a claim of stress. But on the other hand, even the kindest of editors can find themselves momentarily in a genuinely stressful situation that is not their fault, and especially so during ArbCom cases. Ideally, we want those editors to step away from the computer for a brief time. But that doesn't always happen. Someone who lets loose with an angry post one time, but does not do so habitually, should be entitled to having the post examined in context. All too often, I've seen civil POV pushers and even trolls provoke a kind and gentle editor into an outburst, and that editor gets blocked while the provoker walks away smugly. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Tryptofish: Of course, it's understandable that people will not always be at their best; as you rightly say, editors are humans, after all. However, I'd argue that self-declared stress or lack of stress ought not to be included in considerations regarding incivility. The majority of the time, it would be inappropriate to block someone for incivility on a "first offence" basis - the flip side of that is that after two or three times, there's a problem that needs serious addressing, stress or no stress. As many people like to point out in these arguments, Wikipedia is not therapy - which goes both ways; if an editor is being repeatedly incivil to other editors, whatever the reasoning for that may be, they should be prevented from doing so. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]
With that clarification, we pretty much agree, and were just saying the same things in different ways. My concern here is principally on behalf of editors who are not chronically incivil. I would slightly adjust "first offense" to "first offense in a long time", and I do think that context always matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I want to come back here to say that I think that the suggestion about Arbs being more active on case pages earlier on, and giving more feedback about what is or what is not useful, is an important idea that really should be followed through on. I've been noticing a trend in which editors deflect from the issues at hand by raising clearly bogus complaints framed as boomerangs (à la Roy Cohn). This is not at all the same thing as genuine boomerang situations, and it's becoming something that seriously disrupts case pages when it goes on and on and on. Arbs stepping in before it gets out of hand is not the same thing as suppressing legitimate discussion, and would really be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[]
To resolve these problems, we could have clerks actively refactor stale threads into DocumentMode. Using the statements in the thread, the clerks would extract the important points and summarize the issues discussed, and this summary would replace the thread. Subsequent editors could opine by adding a signed comment below or by directly editing the summary. Subsequent threads can then be refactored in the same way. The benefits of encouraging DocumentMode are that
  • DocumentMode dissuades interaction: with minimal chance to interact, there are fewer opportunities for editors to get into conflicts.
  • DocumentMode encourages intervention: editors don't like reverting comments, and they don't like their comments being reverted. DocumentMode gives clerks more options to handle disruption than wholesale reversion. Rather than completely reverting an edit to the summary, clerks can edit it like an article and keep the useful stuff. Editors will still feel heard and clerks won't have to control discussions through direct conflict.
  • DocumentMode leads by example: because the process of refactoring and editing the summary are similar to how we build encyclopedia articles, it provides an example to the parties on how they should behave in articles after arbitration concludes, reducing the chance of further problems.
  • DocumentMode encourages a neutral tone: because heated threads do not stick around, new editors to the discussion will not feel as if they need to get involved in a heated exchange or as if the place is a battleground. Instead, the summaries and limited amount of reading encourage outside participation from those who currently avoid cases due to their heated nature.
  • DocumentMode encourages collaboration: parties can work together to develop a shared understanding of the dispute and get to feel heard as their comments get worked into the summary.
  • DocumentMode produces a useful end product: arbitrators would have a useful and neutral summary of the dispute to work from (perhaps speeding up turnaround time) and years later the community can understand the dispute without having to read hundreds of comments. a useful final product for arbitrators and the community.
It would not be a panacea, and there probably need to be some procedural rules. To prevent conflict, I would suggest only clerks or arbs could convert threads to DocumentMode, and as normal editors who engage unproductively can be warned or sanctioned.
It sounds strange, but it is actually very similar to how we already build articles; it's similar in spirit to Wikipedia:Edit this proposal and is how essays were often written and discussed on MeatBall. It won't be a panacea, and there will likely be growing pains as people adjust to the format. However I think such a change would be a useful experiment to see if it can remedy the climate issues in arbitration cases brought up by this question. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Once upon a time, I made a similar proposal to have designated persons collect the evidence and feedback from interested parties and consolidate it together. This would reduce repetition and the number of threads that have to be followed, making it easier for people to follow the case with less time investment and thus freeing them up for other things. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Atsme:, I'm not sure if there are more rhetorical parts of this paragraph, but I'd like to address the latter part. I get concerned when I see proposals like this - it is fairly frequent, on any conduct consideration location, for a case raiser to have made actions that absolutely warrant a boomerang, though certainly they are sometimes used as a weapon (both "offensively" and defensively), and someone has to raise that and do so before we perhaps lose the other side to a block (someone can be both victim and legitimate accused). In terms of ARBCOM cases and case requests, perhaps we should make it a binding aspect that someone who submits a case can only be judged for a boomerang action either as part of a case or (if the case is rejected) by an arb acting as a regular administrator. The latter is a little complicated since we don't normally allow individual admins to rule on non-simple cases. More thought required, perhaps. Additionally, misbehaviour on the part of the submitter does not invalidate their accusations. Significant delays in boomerang consideration offer an appreciable first-mover advantage. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Nosebagbear - I'll start with the following quote by MalcomX because it fits in so many ways: “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Apply it to WP as it relates to groupthink, and an editor who is charged with disruption by his/her detractors at a controversial article (in AP, GMO, GG, PS, etc.). However...the few who take the time to actually read the diffs in context may very well find that the editor wasn't being disruptive at all; rather, they were consistently effective in discussions/RfCs and the opposition simply wanted them gone. How does the accused present that case to arbcom, knowing the accuser is lying, exaggerating, giving unsupported reasons under the guise of disruption which is immeasurable or ambiguous because our PAGs are unclear and subject to one's POV for interpretation, such as Stonewalling, CIVIL POV pushing, WP:Gaslighting, Wikilawyering, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, CIR, etc. There are no distinguishable lines drawn in the sand. The outcome of any case depends on the number of editors who show up and what power they yield in the community. When I say power, I mean level of popularity in the community, including support from admins who are quick to defend them, right or wrong. It doesn't help the project one bit - we're losing editors as a result - we've seen it played out in the Jytdog case - bully editors who get away with things that others have been site banned over, some for less. Sadly, WP has become a mirror of mainstream media with its opinionated journalism. We also reflect some of the troubling issues we've seen on university campuses regarding safe spaces and free speech. It's a problem. Perhaps disallowing involved editors & admins to participate would help, and instead of using the boomerang force the accusers to open an entirely different case. Atsme Talk 📧 21:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Arbitration is advocacy, which is emotional and persuasive writing. You cannot divorce emotion from it. That said, I would expect that any indecorous words can be edited by ArbCom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Right now much of arbitration space, but especially WP:ACN just lets any cockwomble say what they want. The complete lack of boundaries undermines not only arbitration procedures, the arbitration commitee, but the expectations of what is acceptable onwiki in general. Things that are tolerated in some places, you know like replying to people and having threaded discussions, as we are here, are not tolerated at ArbCom. Yet, for some reason, ArbCom isn't actually any more decorous than any other conduct forum and many times a good deal less. People do, of course need to have space to blow off steam. So I do understand why Arbs would turn a blind eye towards a lot of thing directed at them. But I would hope the arbitrators and clerks would use their judgement, the judgement by the way that we elect arbs for in the first place, about where the line is. Because right now there is no line and there is no judgement being used. Anything goes. And that permissive attitude is, from what I can tell, a big reason we got FRAM in the first place. I would hope that we could learn something from that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[]

7. "Unblockables"[edit]

There is a theory on the English Wikipedia that some users are "unblockables": long-term users who routinely act in ways that would get other users blocked, but who are either not blocked for it or are blocked and then quickly unblocked. This has presented a particular issue for the Arbitration Committee when deciding on sanctions, because choosing a sanction short of an ArbCom-imposed siteban often requires trust that the community will adequately enforce it if it is breached.

How should the Arbitration Committee handle users who have behaved in a way that is sanctionable but not risen to the level of a ban, when the user exhibits the characteristics of an "unblockable"? How can the community better avoid its administrator community treating various users as "unblockables"?

Discussion
The use of the term 'Unblockables' not only is incorrect but causes the problem to be misunderstood. The example of EC is a good example. These editors are frequently blocked, and the block is then always lifted. What typically happens is that one administrator lifts the block, and the lifting of the block is widely condemned, but the block cannot be reinstated, because blocks are preventive and not punitive. Some other term should be used, but I am not sure what it is. ArbCom needs to take up cases of editors who have lengthy block logs. A very lengthy block log is evidence that the community is not dealing with the user effectively. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
For an example, I cite the two ArbCom cases of Joefromrandb. The first ArbCom case was declined, because the subject editor agreed, after pleading by multiple admins, to try to change their behavior. Concerns about their behavior had been documented for more than four years. The second ArbCom case was accepted after their behavior did not change. An earlier ArbCom case might have permitted the editors who were taunting the subject to be identified and also sanctioned. I realize that this example is not about harassment. He wasn't harassing other editors, just being a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Those who dominate the drama boards in specific content areas also tend to be among those who have the most free time to give. I look forward to the brave tomorrow where anyone who calls fellow contributors pigs, dogs, cabal goons, or liars -- (without providing the glossy diffs with circles and arrows showing the gleeful wallowing, loony howling, dextrous cloaking, or fulsome fibbing) -- will be auto-blocked for a spell... no matter who they are or aren't. However, when those glossy diffs are provided, it shouldn't be possible to shout down the evidence by calling up a posse of notice-board minions chanting about golden boomer-rings. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 10:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I generally agree most, of all the users, with the comments of Seraphimblade on this page, but not in this section. Of course once the case has been accepted, the unblockables must be treated the same way as everybody gets treated. The problem is usually that the case does not get accepted. For example, in the FRAM 2017 case, all arguments which featured in the 2019 case, were already there, and still the case was declined because the arbs thought there was insufficient prior resolution (indeed, every ANI case was turning into a drama, and when there is excessive drama it is impossible to judge the merits of the case), and they were not interested in investigating the pattern themselves (this is what T&S has finally done). At that point, something must be done, and treating the unblockables as everybody else would just results in declining the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Beyond My Ken: I agree with Amory and MJL above - my immediate response is "why not?" too. Wikipedia is far bigger than any one user. There is no reason, as far as I can see, why any user should be treated differently to any other in respect of harassment, bullying, abuse - or, in fact, breaking any of our rules. Breaking the community's rules arguably does more harm as a more prolific user. The project will be fine with any individual editor going - nobody individually is essential. That's the whole point of Wikipedia - what we produce is greater than the sum of its parts, and far greater than any single editor. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Beyond My Ken: Personally, I'm of the view that we shouldn't need to compare ourselves to the worst parts of Reddit. We can hold ourselves to a higher standard. There's nothing stopping us from doing so. You can raise an issue with someone without insulting or attacking them - it's really not that hard. There's no reason to attack other editors in edit summaries (or anywhere else) - "X used a bad word in their edit summary" should not be a complaint that's brought up, because "bad words" should not be used directed at other editors, ever. Calling someone's editing "incompetent" oughtn't be generally appropriate, either, although it's not as bad as the former; there are plenty of other ways to convey that same message that use less-charged terms. Saying someone "doesn't have good enough English to edit articles" definitely oughtn't be offensive, and there are plenty of templates that do this in a completely friendly way - consider, for instance, the Welcomeen-lang family.
I said "harass, abuse or otherwise be uncivil", and I meant it. It is my view that civility blocks should be far, far more common than they actually are - an order of magnitude so, perhaps - precisely because of this argument. Whether or not something fits WP:Harassment is not relevant to whether it's civil; personally, I have far more of an axe to grind with uncivil editors than I do even with common-and-garden vandals, because at least we unceremoniously block the latter - the former is an insidious sort of abuse that tears our community apart from the inside out. As I've outlined above, there are always options that don't involve incivility when bringing up issues with editors. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I disagree with much of what you write, but I'll leve it at this: the "incivility crisis" is not what it's cracked up to be. Witness the fact that the editor who campaigned almost entirely on a "incivility is our biggest problem" platform when running for arbitrator was soundly defeated. It ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
(Oh, and BTW, telling an incompetent editor that their edits are incompetent isn't "incivility". WP:CIR, after all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC))[]
@Beyond My Ken: I wasn't active during the 2019 Arbcom elections, so I won't comment on the specific situation, but the statement "a majority of users did not vote for someone who ran on a platform of fighting incivility" is not remotely incompatible with the statement that "civility is an important and significant issue". As to WP:CIR, yes, but the same message can often be communicated in better ways. I think where we diverge here isn't over specifics of policy, so much as it is over communication strategy; the view which I am trying to put across is that we should not ever be using language which could be construed so as to offend where there is any viable alternative whatsoever. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
If writing articles was really someone's priority then they'd find a way to keep themselves out of the drama boards as not to waste anyone's else's time. This would assume that no articles are sensitive, content disputes don't happen, editors who patrol shouldn't, admins are by extension unnecessary, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 07:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[]
(1) Content disputes are solved on article talk pages for the most part; That just isn't what AN/I is for. (2) Writing sensitive articles has nothing to do with frequently being reported for incivility. (3) The last two objections don't even make sense to me. Patrolling articles has nothing to do with writing them. Editors who do anti-vandal work are much more cognizant of their likelihood of being reported to ensure accountability for their actions. Admin actions also don't have anything to do with writing articles 90% of the time. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[]
There are also systemic issues with the blocking policy: Because of the "second mover advantage", an admin is always able to unblock a friend of theirs, without an easy way to re-block absent positive consensus at AN/I, which the unblockable's friends will normally be able to obstruct. Discretionary sanctions blocks avoid this, but are not always possible, and in these cases the harassment often just refocuses on the blocking admin. With ArbCom as the blocker, these problems do not exist. Sandstein 17:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]

At the root of the problem is that brusque, aggressive behaviour is effective at driving other editors away, and so there is an incentive to behave this way, either knowingly or unknowingly of the end result. Closers interpret rough consensus (linked to from Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Consensus) "by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." In combination with the principle that consensus can change and that closers should be evaluating the consensus reached by the participants, and not interjecting their own views on the strength of the arguments, closers often only make use of guidelines to the extent that the participants do. Accordingly, a small number of dissenters can block progress in any discussion, and guidelines only get followed if sufficient numbers of supporters participate in all related discussions. (It can be different people, but there needs to be enough in each discussion to re-establish consensus.) As a result, more often than not, the deadlock is only broken through attrition of participants.

If we want to curb uncollaborative behaviour, we need to resolve content disputes in a way that doesn't provide a motivation for it. Decisions need to be made in a more timely manner, and be less prone to reversal, so that editors can adapt to a settled consensus, rather than being rewarded for driving editors away. On the flip side, we need to be able to deal with recalcitrant editors effectively, so that others aren't driven to frustration. As noted by other commenters, some people aren't well suited to engage collaboratively on English Wikipedia; we need to identify them and gently ease them towards other pastimes. isaacl (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Except it clearly isn't simple, because we absolutely don't all know who the unblockables are, because a) people define the term very differently, and, b) people view different people as falling into those (different) definitions Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[]

No editor is unblockable. EllenCT (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[]

8. Relationship with T&S[edit]

On 21 November 2019, the WMF announced that they would "no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans." In the conversation on meta that led to that announcement, there were several concerns raised involving the relationship between the WMF and ArbCom, including questions of self-governance, appeals, behavioural expectations and standards, and the right of the accused to see the evidence and charges against them.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation and the Arbitration Committee better work together to eliminate duplication and increase transparency and trust, while meeting both the needs of the community and the legal obligations of the foundation?

Discussion
  • and do "they" like the goony mob? Do they like its/their size and scale(s)? Do they like the ways it/they whale(s)?
When I read stuff like "Your edit was complete trash" on my watchlist said to a long-term contributor, with plenty of other reasonable contributors disagreeing I can't help but think that careful deprecator should at the least be forcefully reminded that this style of talk-page and edit-summary behavior is inappropriate. And I know it won't happen. It was that particular trash-talker who brought me to see the urgency of dealing with Wikipedia though; so, maybe I could argue they're not a net negative (if I had an overly inflated sense of self-importance or thought I wasn't alone in being drawn in like that). One possible "movement" strategy... deploy irascible gatekeepers who insist on their prose, so that people will always be attracted to the fight. Churn & repeat. ^^ -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 15:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@SashiRolls: that would be an odd change but perfectly reasonable, the effect of being awake for 24 hours is about as disruptive to cognitive ability as 3 cans of beer. Were an admin to announce that they'd been tipsy when they made loggable actions, the Community would legitimately concerned. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[]
SashiRolls, Nosebagbear - no sleep or asleep at the wheel? Atsme Talk 📧 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Anti-harassment_RfC&oldid=1063496864"