Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC

Comments on unsubstantiated complaints

In Section 4 "Unsubstantiated complaints": In the sentence "Are civility warnings appropriate for editors who are making legitimate criticisms at a volume or in a style that the subject finds too unpleasant to deal with effectively?" does "volume" mean frequency of complaint, visibility of the complaint (e.g. posting to ANI rather than the user's talk page) or something else? It might be worth adding either or both of these if they aren't covered.

Other than that, this looks good on a first read-through. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and reworded from "volume" to "frequency". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a comment in relation to this question: couldn't the language "frequency ... that the subject finds too unpleasant to deal with effectively" allow anyone to play standard processes by complaining upon reception of legitimate warnings? Maybe something else is missing for clarification... For instance, before being reported, an editor is often expected to have been warned sufficiently, with levels 1-4, or 2-4, or the non-template equivalent; there's of course some flexibility and common sense involved there... I wonder if something like "past the point where common sense would require reporting to a noticeboard", or "persistent, repetitive", could help to distinguish where warnings or criticism could begin to be considered harassment (or incivil)? —Paleo Neonate – 02:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, I think the idea here is someone who is being generally civil, but still pushing the issue in such a way that it makes the other person feel uncomfortable. We have a general standard for what we consider uncivil, but that standard may be higher than an individual may be able to bear, and therefore they feel unwelcome or unappreciated. But when we investigate the issue we find that the complainant is not able to provide diffs of incivility or harassment, so we are unable to help them. This question is asking if there is something we can do differently. Using civility warnings could be one of the options. Does that make it more clear, or is there still something that needs to be reworded? – bradv🍁 02:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I interpreted this to mean someone who is repeatedly sending someone templated warnings, either without allowing the recipient time to change their behaviour between them, or using templated warnings for every issue without grouping similar things and/or helping them understand what the issue is (e.g. treating a confused good faith user as if they were a troll). Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay. I think that Bradv's clarification about the context answered my questions satisfactorily. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 05:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON kind of explains how frequent comments can be considered disruptive behavior (at least within a single topic), and I think that ANI can generally handle interaction bans if the frequency is such that it needs attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention WP:BLUDGEON, it was something that came up a lot in a just-closed ArbCom case, and ArbCom showed little or no interest in dealing with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had to go look it up, I don't follow all cases. With or without the essay (which only summarizes existing policy), bludgeoning is clearly against policy as it is a form of disruptive editing. An admin talked of promoting it to Guideline on the talk page of WP:BLUDGEON but I don't see that as necessary or likely. WP:DE is the real meat behind it, and sanctioning someone for bludgeoning (under the authority of WP:DE) shouldn't be an issue. It doesn't require agreeing with every word of the essay, it only requires accepting the general concept that repeatedly doing an action in order to beat others down is a violation of WP:DE. People forget that a good essay doesn't introduce any new "rules" (which would be unenforceable), it only summarizes existing policies and explains how they apply in a particular circumstance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the representation above about BLUDGEON in a just-closed ArbCom case is remotely descriptive of what happened there. When a group of editors are not participating, not reading and have a gynormous case of IDHT, and yet repeatedly ask other editors who are engaged in good-faith dispute resolution to restate arguments that have been given already multiple times, and then still don't read them, and then claim BLUDGEON when the same info is retyped ... the situation is different than painted above. The opposite side of this argument is the worst case of IDHT and "I am too busy and important to participate in dispute resolution" I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and one despaired of having to repeat answers already given but never read. Further, what was also seen in that case was that there was overwhelming evidence of core policy violations in one direction, and no credible evidence against the policy-compliant editor accused of BLUDGEON, so BLUDGEON was pretty clearly the last refuge of those who had no stronger case. There's a pretty good reason why the few arbs who did read the evidence "showed little or no interest in dealing with it". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was that it "came up a lot" during the case. And a lot of editors did refer to it. How can that not be "remotely descriptive of what happened there"? I understand, of course, that you feel very strongly that editors who applied that term were on the wrong side of the argument, and you are very much entitled to that opinion. And you may, perhaps, have been thinking of things that I said there, rather than here. But I didn't say that here, and it's unfortunate that you, um, bludgeoned me for it. (Closely related: WP:STICK.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was ArbCom had no interest in dealing with it. I like the way WAID summed it up; we had some parties actively engaged in dispute resolution, which others ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated complaints. Remember user:Abd? From late 2008 until mid 2011 he pursued grievances against a small number of Wikipedians, including me, repeatedly (if sporadically) rehashing the same litany of complaints, most of which had been investigated in depth and rejected, in some cases multiple times. He was banned from enWP in 2011, but only after being caught using a sockpuppet to evade a topic ban. He took his content and grudges to other WMF projects, notably Wikiversity, and to his own websites. He was banned from Wikiversity in December 2017, and globally banned in February 2018. In February 2019 he filed a defamation lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, and in June 2019 he added me as a party. This contained allegations of harassment that he had made here - unsuccessfully - for several months prior to his ban from enWP, and continued on other WMF projects until he was finally globally banned. Between finding that he'd added my name, and the case being dismissed, took nearly a year: June 5, 2020. And while the WMF's legal defence did result in the case being dismissed, it was dismissed with prejudice with relation to WMF and without prejudice with relation to the individual respondents. So: a year of stress and now wondering whether Abd will file again, which would involve me in significant cost and additional stress - and this on top of years of repetition of unsubstantiated complaints around WMF projects. Years of stress and cost. Guy (help!) 16:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on unblockables draft

IMO the current "unblockables" draft missed two main points and indeed main components of the case that started all of this. First is that most of the unblockables are administrators, and are unblockable because of deference given to or camaraderie amongst administrators. IMO that possibility should mentioned in the draft. As a minimum, in at least one usage say "users, including administrators" instead of just "users". Second, the draft seems to imply that the main issue is failure to enforce blocking outcomes of arbcom decisions. In fact the main issue is that issues with "unblockables" usually don't get to the point of an arbcom case much less an arbcom decision. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without naming any of the "unblockables", or saying which of several recent desyoppomgs I agree with or am troubled by; Arbcom, especially the current committee is more than capable of desysoping an admin. The problem is when the unblockable editor is not an admin, either because they don't want to be judged by a stricter standard or because the community has not supported them in an RFA. The community has historically had a problem with editors whose behaviour would merit a desysop but not necessarily a ban. I suspect that the new power to protect individual pages against individual editors could be a partial solution, but the current draft is correct to identify the unblockables that Arbcom can't deal with as not being administrators. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you are addressing the non-problem. The main "unblockables" are the ones that don't get to Arbcom and which other processes don't/can't handle. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the issue of "unblockables" is one that ArbCom will never be able to handle, because of the nature of this social phenomena. It should not be included. "Unblockables" are those who either have an established large network of friends & supporters -- or perceived to have one. (I believe there are examples for both categories.) It's the eternal dilemma of the In group vs. the Out-group. This fact or perception serves to intimidate those who do not have many connections inside Wikipedia -- which I suspect is the vast majority -- who often decide it's not worth challenging the "unblockables", & put up with injustices real or perceived rather than seeking some form of conflict resolution -- which reinforces the problem. ArbCom cannot act on matters that are not presented to it, while outside groups (such as, but not limited to, the Foundation) can use this lack of reach to undermine the community. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Unblockables exist, people certainly perceive they exist, and if T&S get a reputation for being less exacting on evidence/willing to take weaker cases, people will go to them instead of ARBCOM. I suggest that ARBCOM broaden this to the issue of how to encourage people who have a real grievance to bring it forward, and also make sure that T&S signpost cases to them if they are in ARBCOM's remit. Multiple ways to raise complaints only work where there is real effort made to make sure that complaints get dealt with to the same standard regardless of the route they come in by. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat my point, if A is considered an "unblockable", other Wikipedians will tend not to report A because they think it will not accomplish anything. (Or they think it might give A an excuse to use the rules to sanction the person complaining, & so suffer A's behavior.) It doesn't matter how the ArbCom handles cases about anyone, whether an "unblockable" or not, if no one files a case about the person to begin with. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So to change the perception that there are "untouchable" members of a community, classically there are at least five options. 1 deal with some of the people previously thought immune from sanctions, thereby giving members of the community confidence that complaining is worthwhile. 2 Give people a route to bring their complaints forward confidentially. 3 setup an investigation arm that will prepare cases even where no one is willing to publicly complain but where public evidence exists. 4 Setup an investigation arm that is ready to prepare cases where evidence can't be disclosed to the accused. 5 publicise your rules and enforcement process so that potential complainants are more likely to know it exists. The fourth option lacks certain essential safeguards and as we saw last year can (or will?) become deeply toxic, whether or not the community would have accepted the result if the evidence and charges had been exposed to public scrutiny. But it would make sense if the other four options were at least within the scope of this RFC. In particular an antiharassment strategy needs a route for a third party to file a public case where a group of edits are objectively objectionable, even if the "victim" is not publicly complaining. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've pretty well covered all the bases here, WereSpielChequers: for these reasons, the matter of "Unblockables" really can't be included usefully in this RfC, no matter how vital it is. (And although it is outside this discussion, I'd like to point to the argument I made elsewhere that confidential complaints just don't work on Wikipedia.) Unless a third party (preferably one who is uninvolved) files the case, there's no good way for the ArbCom to be involved in a way that is fair to all parties involved. -- llywrch (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on expectations of civility and what constitutes a personal attack.

Until there is a clearer understanding of where the line is drawn, and also, why it is drawn there, and not somewhere else, there will be those who really do not believe something is uncivil or a personal attack, and others who for equally good reasons, are quite convinced that it is. Desysopping someone who really does not understand why they are considered uncivil by much of the community, and the majority of Arbcom, does not help in the long run. Similarly someone who really does feel personally offended and cannot understand why others think they are overreacting, will not understand when they are informed that there is no offence and therefore no action to be taken, when they do not understand why the words they find so offensive appear to be acceptable to others. "I know it when I see it" is patently unsuitable as a yardstick. We come from such a diversity of cultural and educational backgrounds that we cannot realistically assume that we have enough common ground for the current guidelines to work in practice. A lot of the time it works well enough, but there are enough recent cases to illustrate that this is a real problem, and it needs a real solution. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone coming from a really different cultural background than the majority here, I know that for me it usually does not work in most of the cases.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't people who violate policies and the system to conduct warfare. They are easily and usually stopped. The problem is people who USE policies and the system to conduct warfare. They are seldom stopped and what really makes Wikipedia a vicious place. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures for Administrator accountability

Wikipedia lacks procedures whereby editors, particularly those that lack experience editing Wikipedia, are able to hold administrators accountable for breaches in behavior and conduct. Administrators are often able to abuse powers and influence over other editors so that bold editors are forced into corners and/or perceived edit-war behavior despite the best intentions to improve Wikipedia. I am currently experiencing this for the 3rd time in 10 years, and I'm sick of it. It ultimately falls into harassment and there is little to no recourse for editors and users to report administrators and other users on general conduct issues. Administrators, like Police forces in western society, have an expectation to uphold their conduct to a higher standard - but unlike police forces, there is very little administrating of the administrators on Wikipedia, and very little by way of holding administrators to account for their conduct - especially in the realm of the mass of editors. The 2019 ban on an administrator for 1-year was just one, of many potentially valid disciplinary actions that should have occurred against an administrator. I expect many administrators will be unhappy with me for posting this, but I'm hopeful there are still a few good eggs left. Aeonx (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You come here with that a half hour after you edit-warred a tag with the edit summary: “Clarified the Tag because of incompetent editors that just want to flame people who tries to flag WP:NPOV issues against their bias nonsense” [1] O3000 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary is, indeed, disconcerting. As for the Procedures for Administrator accountability — it is far too vague and offers little in the way of concrete proposals. El_C 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, O3000 actively follows my contributors on wikipedia to harass me, so it's no surprise he's even followed me here; if only you know of half the frustrations dealing with that and not having any recourse to deal with the abusive conduct then perhaps you'd understand the edit summary I added; O3000's view of "edit-warring" is apparently when an experienced editor adds a template to flag concerns with an article. In terms, Procedures for Administrator accountability, I suggest WP establish clear procedures for ensure Administrator accountability to WP Policy and standards, particularly around conduct as a method of assurance. Those procedures might include for example, active sampling of random administrator behaviour and review. Another procedure might include encouraging active reporting of misbehaviour by other editors in a way that is not geared to de-admin; but rather improve behaviour and avoid harassment. Aeonx (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeonx , those proposals seem neither practical nor for that matter desirable. There is already a body with the authority to evaluate and decide on cases of admin misbehavior: it is the Arbitration Committee. El_C 16:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is reactive, what I'm suggesting is Proactive. Genuine concerns and problems I do not believe often make it to ArbCom because by nature of Wikipedia it requires more experienced editors to find the process to escalate to ArbCom and raise their concerns. It's also biased towards those that have the time and energy to carry it through. Wikipedia shouldn't wait for things to go to ArbCom, it needs to proactively monitor the Administrators and their behaviour to ensure accountability. Perhaps you might have the idea that Administrators already also monitor other administrators, but my counter to that is that such a process is flawed by the same aspects. I think Wikipedia is being adversely affected by administrators inhibiting control and independently making arbitrary decisions that have little or no review, adherence to WP guidelines and policy, and little to no oversight, nor accountability. Aeonx (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can take an admin to WP:ANI or WP:AE. But, since all of your complaints are actual content disputes instead of behavior, that would be a mistake. I suggest you take Bish's warning to heart. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. My comment here, above, is about reactivity and procedural measures to ensure administrator conduct compliance to the WP community guidelines and policy. My point in particular goes against what you suggest, in that I suggest we have PROACTIVE measures, rather than REACTIVE measures that require editors to go noticeboards. Aeonx (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeonx lost an argument at Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor where he was trying to argue that something was undue. He then decided to slap an undue tag on the article. Another editor reverted it, he reinstated it, and I reverted it again - from my viewpoint it was disruptive. He reinstated it and were reverted again. So he came here to complain about Admin behaviour although I was the only Admin involved of the 3 editors who reverted it. Looking at his talk page it looks as though he has other concerns about me which he's welcome to bring up on my talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Arb note"

Arbitrator note: Joe Roe I think it's important to signal boost useful information like Special:Diff/961446637, that might be overlooked - any thought of using an {{arb note}} template when we are putting out clarifying information like this? (Exemplified in this comment) –xeno^talk 15:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: Yes good point. I hate to draw attention to my comments with a big bold sign, but it's probably worth highlighting information with wider relevance. – Joe (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about fighting harassment or rehashing FRAMBAN?

The questions have a lot to do with the Fram ban, but very little to do with addressing solutions to harassment. For example, if I wanted to comment about a long-term pattern of harassment against those holding certain economic and political ideologies, which section would be most appropriate? I would like to add an additional question about constructive proposals for addressing such issues. Any objections? EllenCT (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example: [2]. Compare the mandate, "focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future," to [3]. I intend to restore the additional section. EllenCT (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or [4] EllenCT (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is consensus for your change, you can and should take it up with the arbitrators rather than attempting to edit war additional variant questions onto the page. I have no opinion on the matter of whether your concerns are valid. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a clerk, this directive on the page is good advice:

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.

--Izno (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any objections to the addition of a brainstorming section for solutions to harassment? EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the above or totally skip it? You are free to contact the committee if you believe these should be added. --Izno (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Harassment solutions. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very large heading

'Request for Comment' is set at the highest/largest heading level, about which the MOS says 'Heading 1 (=Heading 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the article, and is never appropriate within the body of articles'. Although this isn't an article, it's strange to see a heading of unusual size on a project page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfc

Is there a reason we are not using the standard RFC mechanism somewhere on this page to advertise this discussion? --Izno (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not live yet. You want it? EllenCT (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, it's been live for the better part of a month at this point. --Izno (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do other language Wikipedias handle this thorny matter?

Posing the question as I did not see this discussed as a separate topic. I did go through the inputs to see if there were related mentions; I've listed those below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 310 Wikipedia language editions (as of 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)), only 11 (including enwiki) has arbcom. (IMO) In this context, funct can be Arbcom, or lack of Arbcom, Admin/Crat/CU/OS (if any is existing), or maybe S if there is no such people with such positions.
— User:-revi 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ru-wiki arbcom last year unblocked a user who has been blocked for more than 10 years and has been known to make off-wiki life threats and additionally making statement which I as a former arb may not even disclose in public. Presumably nobody cares. May be because nobody at T&S speaks Russian.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-formatted my words to include proper links to original diff. — regards, Revi 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Most of those 300 or so have very small communities with a high proportion of people knowing each other, if only online. German, French and some other languages do have large communities, not as large as English but large enough to have regulars who don't know each other. I have spoken to German editors who explained that when someone gets upset there are usually phone calls going on offline to defuse things. I suspect that the English Wikipedia community is different in large part because we are so much larger than the others. A much larger proportion of your interactions are likely to be with people who are strangers to you, and many of the most contentious areas of EN Wikipedia, the deletion process, RFA and the drama boards are areas where even the regulars will often find themselves dealing with Wikipedians who are strangers to them. Bigger communities need different sorts of governance, especially when, as in EN Wikipedia, cultural norms and expectations are extremely diverse. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure

If there is any reason anyone objects to a request for closure, would you please let me know? EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. seems rather clear on the point. --Izno (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind if I asked for an admin to close this? EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not eligible to close this discussion (and I believe this is not the first time you are being pointed out to this fact)--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the topic straight above this one says it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT: We'll organise the close. – Joe (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have suspended Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Harassment solutions pending resolution here. EllenCT (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the same question twice without responding to the original discussion is not generally sensible. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. The error was inadvertent. EllenCT (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]