Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC

Background

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

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

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

1. Private evidence

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

• In some cases, the community simply must accept that the arbs cannot comment publicly at all regarding sensitive matters including threats on one's life. For those with institutional memory, there have been two highly sensitive issues that affected me in real life quite severely (and still do). There was and remains no possibility of anyone publicly discussing any of those details. There are two current arbs who have the institutional memory to fill in the gaps on this, as I won't comment further. Because of my personal experiences, when the arbs say they can't discuss something publicly, I take their word for it, and suggest we continue on that path. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Any body that publicizes a decision while concealing the evidence basis for that decision invites mistrust and suspicion. This will be vented in discussion spaces. Arbcom can't avoid this, so the arbs need to overcome any disincentive to take action. It's expected that arbs will have the character, grit and determination to do this.—S Marshall T/C 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Either the community trusts the Arbs, or they don't, and some will always question and hound them over details, while the silent majority respects their actions and is willing to take it on faith. It is entirely more preferable that Arb handles these cases than WMF simply because Arb is accountable to the community, and the WMF isn't, although it should be in some way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• The “easy” way forward on this would be to expand allowing private evidence blocks to members of the functionaries team, which by its nature of being larger is more diverse, and in some cases is more trusted on these type of matters than ArbCom is (example: {{OversightBlock}}s even of established users are rarely controversial. {{ArbComBlock}}s can be.) You don’t get rid of the private nature, but by expanding the number of individuals who are able to handle it, you open the blocks up for more review and also make it come from a body that seems less monolithic. We already get private requests for stuff like UPE (which ArbCom has kinda referred to CUs in the past).
  Dealing with harassment of a private nature goes hand-in-hand with the +oversight permission, and that group contains some of our most trusted users. Policy already allows functionaries to block based on things other administrators can’t see on-wiki. There’s no fundamental difference between that and an email that can easily be shared with your peers. Opening up the private block policy a bit more would help with ability to review these things and also give more trust from a community perspective since there’s a larger group available to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  This makes sense. MER-C 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Vaguely reminiscent of the former WP:AUSC, albeit only in terms of review by non-arbcom members, so it doesn't seem like it would be subject to the same issues (at least such as I was aware of them). This seems like a good idea; formalized or not, it would be good to have more functionary<->arbcom interaction. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think this is the most difficult and most controversial part (tracing on-wiki harassment is usually more difficult), but if off-wiki evidence is involved, it would be sufficient for ArbCom to state that off-wiki evidence is involved, without disclosing what kind of evidence this is and who provided the evidence. (And it is the role of ArbCom to make sure the evidence is genuine). A great part of the FRAM issue was that it was not clear whether evidence was on- or off-wiki, with people trying to analyze available on-line evidence and making all kind of crazy assumptions.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• By and large agree with Smarshall. More generally, I have long noticed that arbcom's communication problem is that it (the COMMITTEE) doesn't actually do after action communication -- it announces its decision, and then it is every arbcom member for themselves. Suggestion: In general, find a way to appoint one, two or three of you to speak for the committee (in each such matter) - have them announce that they are the point person in that matter - other committee members communicate through the spokesperson perhaps in hourly rotation (if something has to be taken back to the committee by the spokesperson say that and be upfront). I think this is especially important in privacy matters because how much to reveal needs to be a group decision, tightly held, not left to every committee member just out there dangling free in cross examination, so that each little reveal by this or that member becomes a torrent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I want to begin by saying thank you to ArbCom for conducting this RfC. Now to the specific question, I agree with other editors that, unfortunately, a certain amount of uninformed criticism from some members of the community is simply something that comes with the job of being an Arb, and Arbs should try not to be inhibited from using their best judgment out of fear of criticism. And the community should accept that we don't know what we don't know, and should not WP:ABF the Arbs. On the other hand, I think that ArbCom should be reasonably strict on the point that something that does not need to be private, and is happening entirely onsite, should be dealt with onsite. Private evidence should be evidence that needs to be private, not accusations from persons who simply want to make accusations without community awareness of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Adding: I disagree with the idea of oversighters and checkusers formally taking on additional roles as kind of like additional arbitrators. But there are perhaps some things that ArbCom could delegate to them, within their traditional roles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Tryptofish, yeah, I don’t think many of us, myself included would want to be a second ArbCom. I was just saying clarify WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE in regards to some of the more straightforward cases for CU/OS. How strictly BLOCKEVIDENCE is read/enforced changes from year to year based on the views of the sitting ArbCom (see my link above re: UPE/COI) and even outside of CU/OS in some cases seeing admins say stuff like “I’ve seen this email user sent from the Wikipedia email function that led to this block, I’ll forward it to any other admin” isn’t exceptionally rare.
      As an example JC7V7DC5768 is User:Jaredgk2008. I think that was figured out via emails and reddit messages obsessing over shoes (weird tick of that sockmaster) that was emailed to the functionaries list as well as some geolocation stuff and a bit of on-wiki behaviour comparison. The weird reddit and email stuff was what made the link though. There was back and forth on how to handle a block even though everyone involved in the discussion agreed it was him because of the BLOCKEVIDENCE bit. Eventually it was done as an ArbCom block, but from a practical perspective it really didn’t matter if it was an ArbCom block, CU block, or regular admin “appeal reserved to ArbCom block.” Stuff like email or other types of non-diffable harassment by known LTAs is something the CU/OS team can handle fairly easily. It’s different than something like a long-term user making a Twitter to harass people he considers his enemies and having to rely on judgement as to if it’s the right person. I don’t think anyone who isn’t an arb wants that role. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

      The checkuser and oversight teams are often better at doing investigations than ArbCom is, simply because they were specifically chosen for those roles, and usually have more experience. However, there is a fundamental difference between an OversightBlock and an ArbComBlock that should not be overlooked – ArbComBlocks require a majority vote of the committee, whereas Oversight and Checkuser blocks can be done by an individual functionary. Although the appeal process is the same, the process for applying an ArbComBlock is more robust. – bradv🍁 14:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

      • Sure, but a lot of these cases really don’t require a full discussion and vote. I’m not talking about things that are complex. Stuff like sending an abusive email to a user using Wikipedia’s email function is pretty straightforward, and depending on the composition of the committee in a given year, they may or may not care if someone else does the block. Formalizing some structure around when this would be okay would be useful. We already have admins who think “blocked based on email, I’ll forward if you want” is within policy (hang around CAT:RFU enough and you’ll see it.) Going ahead and delegating a lot of this is fairly feasible. It’s what was de facto done with UPE for years, so there’s precedent there in ArbCom motions and in reporting instructions (paid OTRS queue.) You have a 45 member oversight team, most of whom are pretty competent at this type of stuff. Letting them help deal with the obvious cases would reduce overhead. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• This has been understandably a really hard part of the arbitration process. The TDA and Soap bans come to mind, along with a few others where private, offsite evidence upset many. And while looking back at the ensuring discussions, while there is some completely ridiculous complaints that no one would agree with, the general sentiment- that there's a disconnect between "higher ups"- still rings true. The is likely an unsolvable problem, maybe give extremely vague descriptions for actions based on private evidence? But those have been provided before and people still didn't like them, even though that was a while ago. Thinking about two recent bans based on private evidence- Sk8erPrince and Icewhiz- the community reaction was pretty nonchalant, but maybe because the reasons for why were pretty well known.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• First off, be clear that a decision is based partially or entirely upon private evidence. No details need to be or should be provided as to what that evidence is, but I am reminded of the Ritchie disaster where it later turned out that a private decision was based entirely upon on-wiki conduct, and even the request "Tell us whether there even is private evidence" was met with cagey non-responsive responses. If it is made clear (preferably in ARBPOL) that private decisions may only take place when private evidence is a substantial part of the case, that would go a long way toward resolving any mistrust. Additionally, so far as is possible without compromising anyone's privacy, the Committee should still attempt to provide at least a generalized rationale for its actions when this would be possible. In some cases, "We're banning this person and can't tell you anything about why" will still be necessary, but that should be quite rare. Cases involving only public on-wiki evidence should be handled publicly on-wiki; private cases should still be handled with a balance between transparency and respect for confidentiality of private or off-wiki information. There will still of course always be some people upset, but I believe these measures would be convincing to at least most of the community that when a case is handled privately there is a genuine need for doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have no problem with ArbCom accepting private evidence, and can see numerous situations in which such a procedure is necessary. However, I do not believe that ArbCom should accept prima facie the claim that evidence needs to be private without explicit explanation as to why this is the case. Obviously, it is to the complainant's advantage for evidence not to be known to the alleged harasser, so ArbCom needs to be absolutely certain that privacy is necessary. Further, the entire body of evidence presented to ArbCom may not be necessary to be private, and ArbCom should, to the best of its ability, separate the necessarily private from the rest of the evidence, and release the remainder to the alleged harasser and the Wikipedia community under the circumstances it considers to be proper, but during the adjudication of the complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Upon requests from the community, I think it should be possible to provide copies of sanitized evidence (with private information removed/blurred). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any cases where this is possible and not already done. In some cases attempting to do this would lead to increased problems for the victim and/or people incorrectly identified as victim or harasser. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unfortunately there is a section of the community that has already made up its mind that the arbs and/or are evil (or corrupt or whatever) and nothing will convince them otherwise. Everybody needs to be firm in not allowing these people to bully private information into the public domain. More generally, I agree with Smarshal and TonyBallioni. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think our current arbitrators are either evil or corrupt. I do, however, think that they, being human and subject to making errors, have collectively made some errors in the past. Stigmatizing everyone who disagrees with your position as having closed minds and accusing them of vilifying ArbCom hardly seems like the right attitude to go into an RfC of this seriousness with. Why don't you approach them as fellow editors who happen to have a different take on things and dial back on the rhetoric a bit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are always going to be cases in which evidence cannot be made public. Short of asking the WMF to deal with all such cases the only solution is to have them dealt with by ArbCom or some ArbCom-like body of trusted community representatives. Anybody who is fundamentally opposed to actions being taken on private evidence should be reminded of this, and if it doesn't work then I don't think anything else will. Explicitly stating that some action has been taken on the basis of private evidence would help, as would posting high-level summaries or reasons when possible. Hut 8.5 11:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I do not follow ARBCOM stuff closely, but my general impression is that so long as ARBCOM keeps the exception for private evidence narrow, and that ARBCOM is clear when they are/aren't relying on private evidence, that the community generally accepts the need and generally trusts it to be used narrowly. There will always be people unhappy with individual case outcomes, but I don't think the level of inevitable discontent has risen to a systemic problem. (Edit to clarify: Narrow means things such as off wiki evidence or oversighted content etc, not public on-wiki diffs.)
  On a related note, I will say that the Foundation has neither the competence nor the trust to handle routine claims of "harassment" or "incivility" where someone is unhappy that their edits are being strongly and persistently criticized or opposed. It is all too common that the strong and persistent criticism is warranted, and that the complainant is the problem. (That problem massively escalates if the individual brings in canvassed/meatpuppet/activist/COI/paid or other allies to attack and counter legitimate criticism.) It is appropriate for Trust&Safety to take jurisdiction over things like violent threats and escalate that as a police matter. However Trust&Safety is neither competent nor trusted to pass judgment on content quality, nor to pass judgement on the legitimacy of strong or persistent criticism that someone's content fails to comply with community policies and guidelines and standards. Alsee (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• The committee can change themselves, but they can never change the community.
  If the community wants to act like children and scream that's not fair, then that's on them. The fact that people can get surprised that the random strangers they only know from the Internet actually turned out to be an awful person is the most perplexing thing to me. Now, I love CaptainEek (using Eek because of their trademarked niceness); but if seemingly out-of-the-blue Arbcom de-sysopped and site-banned them based off private evidence, then I wouldn't think twice about it. I'd probably post how sad that is to see, hope the situation that led to that scenario has now been resolved, and then try to move on. People do bad things, and sometimes they are the people you don't expect them to be.
  If Arbcom is finding their work being negatively impacted by people who don't understand that and lob unfair accusations against them, then that is a major issue which should be addressed. If this is happening in arbspace, like in WT:AC/N, then the clerks need to be instructed that Wikipedia isn't a forum for people to play around in and remove offending comments from the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Fear of retaliation

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

• I am of two minds on this. Only a few months ago, I would have answered an unequivocal "yes" to having ArbCom privately handle such cases, as I feared retaliation from one harasser. However, recent handling of arbcases have shown the other side of that problem. First, the person I feared was still able to affect me as wikifriends simply proxied for them in their absence, and harassed me in reprisal, so I now see that having everything as public as possible is much preferable. Second, the current Arb committee has allowed false charges of harassment to stand on arb pages, even when disproven, so again, it is better to have this information public so that all can see who lodges false charges, and who failed to address them. Third, the current ArbCom has shown itself unwilling to deal with unblockables, so giving those editors further leeway to extend their commentary in private is not likely to be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• If all the evidence is public and on wiki, 99% of the time it would be expected the case would be handled publicly. I say 99% of the time because there are always unforeseen circumstances that I simply can't imagine, which would fit in that 1%. There is no perfect system. Trying to create a 100% perfect system of "justice" at Wikipedia is a fool's errand. All we can do is the best we can do, and sometimes, we will fail. Accepting that fact is critical. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think it's that much about retaliation, but the active act of making interacting with you as unpleasant as possible (with chronic incivility and hostility) so that you would step back from disputes. As long you recognize this intent, it won't work, but most editors won't have a thick enough skin to take the flak. Yes, private processes would fix this, but those have the downside of asymmetric participation. I don't know which is better. --Pudeo (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• To some extent, because we are a privately-owned website as opposed to the public square, we have to accept the fact that editing Wikipedia is not for everyone (the slogan of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" notwithstanding). So I don't think that ArbCom should agree to take a case privately simply because the complainant does not want it to be on-wiki. Whether something is actual retaliation or just ongoing nastiness, if it is happening onsite, it should not be tolerated, and we need to do better at making complainants believe that, if they do get blowback for having made a good-faith complaint, at least that will have consequences for the user who is bothering them. To make ANI less toxic would require some brave admins who are willing to close sooner the kinds of discussions that drag on and on past their expiration date. But it will still be toxic even then. And that should be something that ArbCom should be willing to take on: a history of multiple failed attempts to resolve a problem at the community level is the standard situation where ArbCom accepts a case request, and I think it would be desirable to accept cases based on chronic incivility and not just based on some more clear-cut violation of policy. And I feel very strongly that the answer to the question of whether chronic incivility should be treated as sanctionable, even if it is not harassment, is a loud and clear "yes". Personally, I'm really sick and tired of incivility onsite. The WMF is talking about "toxicity, incivility, and harassment", and whatever one thinks of WMF's competence at doing something about it, if one considers the spirit of that concern, it's a significant one, and it's about more than just harassment itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think on several points I agree with Tryptofish. Private handling isn't the way toward it anyway. If the accused really has been targeting someone, they'll know damn well who filed the complaint (and even if they're wrong, that individual still might become a target). ANI is good at handling clear and unequivocal cases, but is a substantially less good setup for dealing with difficult and complex cases with blame to be shared among many. I very much agree that if a matter has been repeatedly to ANI, and the matter has degenerated into shouting matches without any resolution, that indicates it is time for ArbCom to accept a case regarding the issue, where a structured format can allow for a much more in-depth analysis of the issues. But allowing private complaints of harassment based solely upon on-wiki conduct opens up the very real possibility that the body tasked with handling such complaints will itself become a vehicle for harassment via spurious complaints. When handled on-wiki, repeated filing of meritless complaints tends to result in the flight of boomerangs, discouraging the practice. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a site whose community strongly values openness and transparency, and editors uncomfortable with those things may not be a good fit here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• The problem is the blurry standards. What is offensive to one person is just a joke to another. Another problem is the power unbalance. Recently I felt that I was a victim of some major ABF/NPA from an admin who thinks they are immune to criticism due to how well-known they are within the community, both online and quite likely through face-to-face meetups they attend (and I don't). I do feel that if I made a public complaint about them, I'd be piled upon by that person's friends and colleagues, and if any of them are vindicative, I'd be harassed one way or another for years (for example, by said admin and their buddies making comments critical of me in the 'uninvolved admin' sections or such, to show everyone what happens if you dare to criticize their clique). Now, maybe I am wrong and maybe that person and their friends would not act like this, and maybe if I made the public complain the community would side with me. But as a non-admin, I do think there is a large power imbalance here, and so I think that there is a reason for such cases to be made in private and reviewed by a selected body, to protect the less empowered members of the community from the real or perceived threat which otherwise makes them accept real or perceived harassment without complaining, due to fear of retaliation if they make their complaint public. Of course, eventually, the complaint is likely the made public, at least in some form, but I'd think this could be done only if the evidence is compelling enough to sanction the person against whom the complaint was made, so they could appeal it. But we should reduce the chances of 1) them being defended by their friends leading to the complaint being ignored because nobody wants to criticize a well-connected wiki-faction and make enemies, and 2) if the complaint is dismissed, making the complainer both look incompetent and open to indicative actions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I am not in favor of public disputes being handled in private by ArbCom if there is no private evidence to be considered. Public disputes need to be handled in public, in front of the Wikipedia community. Fear of unpleasantness or the (claimed) expectation of retaliation is simply not enough to justify a star court. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • And that is exactly the sort of comment that hinders the handling of genuinely private evidence by poisoning the well of good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • OMG! Did I just "poison the well" of every case involving private evidence forever and ever and ever!?!?
      Please tone the hyperbole down a bunch of notches, it's just a freaking opinion. If you disagree with it, fine, there's no need for tarring-and-feathering. I expect better from you, Thryduulf. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I can see value in some sort of semi-private semi-public dispute resolution body that accepts a complaint in private and makes a prima facie determination of whether there is substance to the complaint. If there is, then a neutral statement of the dispute is posted publicly soliciting evidence to be submitted privately. That evidence is then sifted to remove things like personal attacks, and irrelevant or unsupported material and then posted publicly, with (some parts) possibly anonymised. With this public evidence being the basis for a structured community discussion (with active moderation of off-topic and unsupported accusations, etc) of the issue for community resolution. This would be a lot of work for the group receiving the private evidence but it could reduce the toxicity or intimidation factors. (Details would obviously need to be worked out if this were to be implemented, and this is not the place to do that so please keep any discussion of this idea to a high level and don't oppose simply due to lack of detail). Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Great, another "body", more bureaucracy. Fabulous idea. How about more transparency with the bodies we already have? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• ANI is generally pretty bad at dealing with complex or chronic issues involving experienced editors, and replacing it with an alternative process may well be a good idea. One thing which is problematic is that you can't file a complaint against someone without dealing with them or their associates, which is a big deterrent if that person is harassing you. If we could try to remove that element from the process then I think it would help. What is most desirable in these cases is input from previously uninvolved editors rather than discussion between the parties. I would also be comfortable with ArbCom handling select issues of this type. I know there is a requirement that arbitration shouldn't happen unless other community processes have been tried first, but this may not make sense if the problem is one which community processes are bad at handling. Hut 8.5 12:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• We would all love a magic wand to make dispute resolution less unpleasant. I regret that I have no easy or magical fixes to offer. I oppose taking routine on-wiki 'harassment' cases secret. In many cases people cry 'harassment' when their edits face legitimate, strong, persistent criticism and opposition. In many cases the complainant is the source of disruption and attacks against others. We of course want to deal appropriately and firmly with valid cases, but it would undermine both justice and trust-in-the-process to allow the process to become a weapon to slay opponents in secret. Alsee (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• We need a Wikipedia:Users for discussion (structured much like WP:MfD) where any user [including admins] can be nominated for discussion (the only immediate requirement being that they've edited within the last 72 hours). There'd be a strict criteria for speedy closes (for example, the filer was blocked within 24 hours of a nomination being made), and users who filed too many reports would be sent to WP:AN/I. Content dispute could be discussed freely (with WP:local consensus compromises given the chance to be heard), and where consensus can be found to sanction, de-sysop, or otherwise deal with problem users. The board could even serve as a place to give editors a chance to have their own conduct reviewed if they so choose, or to say good things about an editor who seems down.
  I solely propose this idea because there are no public forums where a user can report another user and actually know that said user would actually be discussed (WP:AN/I is structured in such a way, that boomerangs always detract from the filed report). However, this is a pipe dream because no one would ever want my ideal level of individual accountability. Also, knowing what I do, the vision I have in my head would never work in practice for this community and its culture. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  If Arbcom wants to know why it receives so many requests handle onwiki disputes privately, it's because this community has given victims of harassment no ability to report their harasser without painting an amazingly huge target on their back. Even if a group of benevolent uninvolved admins came together to manage a specialized harassment helpline email list specifically made to privately hear out onwiki conduct issue, they still wouldn't be allowed to do anything about it without (at the very least) naming the user who filed the report (just to make a block that won't probably stick).
  If you were designing a system built specifically to protect harassers from accountability, I'd imagine it'd look similar to Wikipedia. We have a system where you (ie. victims) have to independently-- without help-- loudly and boldly proclaim the misdeeds done against them in a highly visible setting with rock-solid evidence to back up every single accusation you make while also being prepared to publicly defend yourself from any counter-accusations which could be made against you by any number of individuals during this process and having to justify why your accusations outweigh the perceived benefit of your harasser's contributions but still being calm and civil about the whole thing regardless what is said about you, your intentions, and your own ability to contribute to the very same project. Go through this process enough times, and you yourself risk being labelled "the problem" for inciting so much "drama". –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Opportunity to respond to allegations

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

• See my responses to the first two questions above. On the one hand, when lives are threatened and one has to write to the arbs, one MUST assume that information will remain strictly confidential. Risker, Casliber or Newyorkbrad can fill in details. We must allow arb discretion to know when information must be private. But separately from that, seeing that we have seen that not even the arbs are immune to preferential treatment of unblockables, there are certainly cases where one should be given a right of defense (and hope the arbs will actually read it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• No evidence should be secret from the accused. It's unjust to punish an editor on the basis of evidence they haven't had the chance to challenge and reply to. Therefore complainants and witnesses must be willing to testify or else no sanction can be applied.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm western-centric, but I do believe that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This means if someone is accused of serious policy violation, they should be able to know who is making the claim and have an opportunity to respond. "Private" implies off wiki material, which is easier to forge or fake than on wiki, and not allowing any access is unreasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I’m skeptical of any attempt to create due process on Wikipedia. We are not a legal system and there is no inherent right to edit. Actions taken are for the best interest of the project, and sometimes when dealing with sensitive situations you do not want to tell all parties precisely because ArbCom is not a court and can only block someone. It can’t protect them in real life or even on other Wikimedia projects. The goal on Wikipedia should never be procedural fairness but rather substantive fairness. In some cases substantive fairness might give individuals the right to respond. In other cases it absolutely should not.
  We should not be giving someone where there is legitimate concern about real life stalking (such as messages on Facebook, Instagram, etc.) the opportunity to learn that their victim has requested they be blocked and explain the actions. If they are charged criminally, they can do that in a real court. This is not a real court, and no human rights are violated by blocking someone without giving them a chance to respond. These situations should be handled case-by-case but substantive fairness must be the standard, not procedural. A body of volunteers should not be making procedural rights on a website when it comes to dealing with harassment complaints. Sometimes specifics should be given, other times not. It depends and the answer is not absolute. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Meatball wiki has a helpful page about why having fair processes helps make online communities work better.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• You don’t give someone the right to respond to allegations that they took pictures of someone’s house and sent them to them on Instagram. They could easily be doing that to multiple people and by giving them the right to respond you could put someone’s life at risk. In a court of law, where there are armed guards and someone can go to jail for harming a witness and is at risk for losing their real life liberty, they have a right to confront their accuser. On a private website where the worst penalty is being told to find a new hobby? No, of course we don’t let someone see evidence that could put the life of someone else at risk. We block them and let T&S evaluate what needs to be passed to law enforcement.
  As I said, it’s case-by-case, and sometimes substantive fairness will mean letting someone respond. Other times it means blocking them without comment. In these types of cases it very much depends on the specific facts of the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• In cases like that, Arbcom's role is to call the police.—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely, and they will be given due process rights by an actual court. They’ll also be blocked here and not given any information that could endanger lives. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Whether to block should be a decision for the authorities. They might want the alleged abuser to be given more rope. In all honesty there aren't many decision points for a volunteer body in a case like that. I'm talking about the cases where Arbcom is rightly the deciding body.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, the victim calls the police; the arbs still have the issue of blocking or desysopping the editor, and still should not reveal the information publicly. The police rarely act, and the arbs still have to take action on the website particularly when disruption and threats are also happening on the website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• While I agree that a case-by-case approach is superior to formulating a rigid, absolute answer, we all need to be mindful that the specific case that eventually led to this RfC did not involve real life stalking. Rather, it was a matter of the WMF protecting their own from editorial scrutiny at the expense of a volunteer who was merely seeking to uphold encyclopedic standards. We are not a real court and there will probably be cases in which some evidence needs to be kept private in order to safeguard the well-being of victims, but recent precedent has shown that at least some authoritative bodies cannot be trusted to know when private evidence is not appropriate. Therefore, it may be necessary to establish specific rules that restrict the use of private evidence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• That is fair. I think it should be principles based rather than formulaic, and I was responding in part to S Marshall and Denis Brown, both of whom gave a fairly US Bill of Rightsy response to something that is more complex precisely because ArbCom isn’t a government. I’d generally support the principle of When there are legitimate concerns about safety, information may not be shared with all parties. In other cases information will be shared as far as is practicable within the confines of the specific case and respecting the privacy and moral rights of all involved. I think that’d deal with the concerns on both sides while also keeping us clear of the “ArbCom as court” mindset. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Lepricavark, the recent case is not the only case and we should not hamstring the arbs from dealing with much more serious and clearcut cases than the recent case. In my case, the situation one time was handled perfectly and competently by the arbs and there was no other way it could have or should have been handled. The other time was less expedient and competent, but handled nonetheless based on plenty of public evidence, with other private evidence that merely corroborated what was public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

• I think we need a category of trusted user who can see the allegations and help mount a defense in cases where the accused seeing all of the allegations would out the accuser and/or expose them to further harassment or other dangers. The accused could be allowed to choose from a list of such trusted users someone they also personally trust, and that person would be able to see all evidence and investigate it from the accused's point of view. —valereee (talk) 18:01, 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)

• It only matters that the advocate/representative is trusted by the accuser. It doesn't matter if they're a functionary or trusted by Arbcom. The "private evidence" will be the private evidence submitted by the accuser, so if the accuser trusts their advocate/representative with seeing the private evidence, that's all that matters. I think all editors should be allowed to have an advocate/representative, whether it involves private evidence or not. Almost every dispute resolution system in the real world allows people to have advocates/representatives, and for good reason. We should, too. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• As for the idea of a trusted user to act as a sort of pubic defender, I agree with what other editors have said about why that won't work well. Instead, I think ArbCom should take seriously the role of looking at both sides, and I think ArbCom already does that well enough that parties do not need to have representatives speaking for them. As for being able to respond to allegations, I'd like for the approach to be to default to giving the accused as much opportunity to do so as practical – except when the situation is one where the accused clearly cannot be trusted. So things like off-site harassment, child welfare issues, threats from mentally ill persons, and threats of harm, are situations where the accused is not entitled to any such access from ArbCom to accusations – and of course, there are things that cross the line into being an actual legal problem, that are above ArbCom's pay grade. When it seems likely that something is happening that is a police matter or a WMF legal matter, ArbCom should be able to block or IBAN someone without otherwise dealing with the problem, as a sort of preventative act somewhat like WP:NLT blocks, until the problem is resolved. But for problems that are less than that, for problems that are basically onsite bad behavior, the accused should have access to the accusations, minus private information (as the harassment policy defines "private information"). The accused may indeed be able to figure out the accuser's on-wiki identity (username), but not the accuser's real life identity unless posted onsite, so long as the accused is not someone who is engaging in those kinds of very serious dangers that I listed just above. If someone is simply being bad on-wiki, and not anything else, they should be able to respond to allegations in that way (and they can be sanctioned if they retaliate onsite). It is offensive to envision that the accused would be left in the dark. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Having been on ArbCom myself, I'm certainly aware of cases where revealing information to the one accused would very much put the complainant at risk, so I would not have a blanket rule that it must be done in all cases. However, it should be the default, especially if it's just an accusation of garden-variety misconduct such as inappropriate use of email (and, as above, questions regarding one's on-wiki conduct should always be handled publicly). A good rule of thumb might be that if the matter is serious enough that a reasonable person would consider referral to T&S for law enforcement followup, that's when one should seriously consider whether disclosure is appropriate. But in most cases, the accused should have the opportunity to respond. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Consult with the person making the complaint. They need to balance what evidence they want to make public, which can reveal their identity, and which evidence they don't want to make public, even to the harasser. Of course, if they chose to withhold the evidence to the point the alleged harasser cannot reply to it, such evidence is not really evidence, and should not be a factor, since in the end or has to be able to defend themselves - also from fake accusations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think here ArbCom should take their cue from a well-tried system of jurisprudence: the Anglo-American justice system. The alleged harasser should be considered "not guilty" until otherwise proved, and that means that the mere allegation of wrong-doing should not be sufficient to deny them access to the evidence against them. If ArbCom has seen the evidence, and it;s unequivocally strong enough that the alleged harasser appears to ArbCom to be guilty, then ArbCom should just apply a sanction and close the case. Anything in between, and the evidence must be shared (although I would have no objection to specific facts being redacted if they don't appreciably affect the case and are likely to be used against the complainant). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think arbcom should be very cautious about blindly applying rules and procedures from legal systems to its own procedures because, fundamentally, it is not (and should not be) a court. The goal of arbitration should be to do what is best for the encyclopaedia first and foremost, while being as fair as possible to the individuals. In most cases that will be sharing (a summary of) evidence with accusers, but there will be times when that is neither possible nor desirable. For example if it is clear from a user's twitter profile that they are intentionally significantly disrupting the encyclopaedia, and there is no doubt that twitter user and Wikipedia editor are the same person but no on-wiki link has been made, then that editor needs to be blocked and all they need to know about why is that there is evidence that they are intentionally damaging the project. The same is true if the off-wiki evidence is that they are intentionally harassing one or more editors - they absolutely should not be told who complained or what evidence specifically was, because we don't want them to increase the harassment or tell them how to cover their tracks better in future. These will be rare cases though, and we need to trust the judgement of the arbitrators (who we elected for this purpose) about when it is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Look at all the language which is used in relation to ArbCom, and it's patently obvious that it is a court, albeit of a specific type with rules that actually don't protect people accused of misbehavior as well as actual courts do. Looking at this RfC, it's quite clear is that the concern is primarily about protecting and accommodating the person who is alleged to have been harassed, and little or no concern is shown for the accused person. That imbalance needs to be addressed, but I don't see much effort being put into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Seraphimblade: people should be given an opportunity to respond by default but there shouldn't be an absolute right to it and it can be suspended if there's a good reason to do so. Hut 8.5 12:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Arbcom's disgusting and reprehensible behaviour when it actively collaborated with the WMF in not allowing Fram to a)know who had made allegations against him, and b)see the totality of the evidence used against him (collated by a WMF team made up of some of the worst individuals to be involved in harrassment) needs to be explicitly forbidden in future. No you do not get to make allegations against someone without them knowing who their accusers are. No you do not get to submit evidence against someone without them being able to see it and respond to it. These are fundamental rights of every person which the WMF trampled over and Arbcom rolled over and enabled. The problem with private evidence was not that it was kept from the general editing public, but that it was kept from the person accused. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Arbs/clerks: Is there really a need for those gratuitous personal attacks? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Dont want to be called out for denying a person their basic rights under natural justice? Dont take actions that require challenging. Fram was denied the basic rights that murderers and child molesters are accorded when evidence is submitted against them. Arbcoms decision to refuse to show Fram the evidence against him in full, its refusal to name his accusers to him, was a disgusting and despicable act of cowardice and a blatant abuse of basic fairness. You call that a personal attack? As long as you take actions that are unethical and immoral dont complain if people take exception to them. Dont complain in an RFC that is meant to address the sitation, those actions are called out for what they are. Wikipedia is neither a criminal nor a civil court, so there is absolutely no excuse for using procedures that deny the accused the chance for a proper rebuttal that are only used in cases of terrorism to protect intelligence assets. Gratuitous? I could write 3000 words without blinking on the necessity of challenging the methods used in the Fram case, why it needs to be publically aired, and that everyone involved should be ashamed for enabling such despicable actions. The above is the *minimum* I can state without using profanities, or my true thoughts on ther individuals involved in it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use "disgusting" and "despicable" and "reprehensible", but I do agree with OID that the actions of WMF and ArbCom in not allowing Fram to see the totality of the evidence presented against them was a very poor one, albeit made under stressful circumstances. Simple justice would have allowed it, and there's no excuse for the decision to withhold the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to me there was no issue here until the Foundation screwed things up, and proceeded to twist ARBCOM's arms trying to get themselves out of the crisis they made. Depending how you look at it this response either fails to answer this question, or fully answers it. Alsee (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I take strong exception to the comments of, e.g., S Marshall. In the real world, that the accused have access to the evidence against them in a criminal trial is crucial because of power imbalances: the state has access to police, jails, a professional prosecutor corps, etc., and access to the evidence is part of a package of rights to ensure that this power is not mis-used. In the civil setting, cases are adjudicated by judges who again have access to the power of the state to ensure that all participants engage appropriately. There is simply no analogue of these state powers in the context of Wikipedia self-governance: being blocked or banned are entirely dissimilar from being arrested or jailed or fined, and the community/admins/ArbCom/the WMF have no mechanism to enforce any punishments more severe than banning. Meanwhile harassers have access to a wide array of harmful tools outside of WP, regardless of any blocks or bans. This different power dynamic means that naive translation of the rights of the accused is going to be very problematic. I think the comments of Seraphimblade are very sensible. --JBL (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I no longer trust Arbcom to fairly judge evidence that the subject of the complaint is not given an opportunity to rebut. There have been too many cases of bias among arbs. But the WMF is worse. We need to be able to trust Arbcom, which means arbs setting aside friendships and keeping each other fair, and ideally, I'd like to see a way to impeach Arbcom; the need for it was horribly apparent during the Fram case. The subject of the complaint should be given all possible access to specifics on the evidence behind the accusation. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Part of the WMF v Arbcom problem is that we can vote out the arbs, but not the WMFers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't we literally just have an arbcom case where an communally-elected WMF Trustee was sanctioned? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  He was sanctioned at the en-Wiki level, sure, but arbcom can't do anything about his status with the Foundation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Unsubstantiated complaints

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

• No, "civility warnings are not 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". This is too easily gamed, as we have seen recently. Those who don't want any criticism of policy violations-- even those that comment on the content, not the contributor-- are too often prone to cry "civility", and too often unwilling to address the problems with their contributions. But yes, there is something ArbCom can do: actually read the "real" evidence in arbcases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• If someone's making a mistake we need to be able to tell them so, and sometimes it's necessary to say it clearly and frankly. If the subject finds that unpleasant, then they may not be well-suited to Wikipedia. Compared to the rest of the internet Wikipedia is hardly a bear pit.—S Marshall T/C 14:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not therapy. If someone is overreacting to an event, there isn't anything we can do except explain that to them. We aren't here to be the civility police, or to help overly sensitive people cope. Not everyone can contribute to a collaborative project comfortably, and while we try hard to accommodate and compromise as much as possible (including voluntary interaction bans), some will just not fit in. It is impossible to make Wikipedia a perfect environment for everyone, and trying to do so will just run off more people than it accommodates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Editing is a rough business, and one needs to learn to not take it too personally when someone else kills your darling. Frank and direct assessments of other editors’ contributions are vital to the improvement of the encyclopedia. New editors may need to learn to detach their emotional response to having their work edited. Rudeness that goes beyond “frank and direct” on behalf of revising editors is counterproductive to that goal. I don’t like the phrase “civility warning”; if the conduct isn’t sanctionable, what are you warning them of? But if ArbCom’s conclusion is that someone was unproductively rude but not harassing, by all means say so. Frank and direct assessments of contributions go both ways.--Trystan (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Being the civility police has never worked out well for either ArbCom or individual administrators. Let the noticeboards handle these issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Personal attacks should be met with warnings and/or blocks, depending on the specifics of the situation. However, editors often fail to distinguish between personal attacks and criticism of content. If any editor finds that they cannot handle having their work scrutinized even when that scrutiny is within the bounds of NPA, then perhaps this editor needs to find a different hobby. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• If someone has a pattern of being unpleasant or rude, without good reason, then that goes against various conduct policies. I know the community is generally terrible at enforcing these but that's a bug, not a feature. Hut 8.5 16:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, false claims of "harassment" made by unblockables needs addressing. I was, for example, blocked for (nearly) two years on the basis of the sockpuppet User:Sagecandor claiming that I was "hounding" them. Though I have repeatedly asked for that "block record" to be amended, it has not been. More recent examples of people using that tactic may be explored someday. (I have in mind the removal of a sanction (for another unblockable) by dei ex machina, and the fact that I was "convicted" in one area before being allowed to present a defense. It may be that some unblockables do more good than harm. However, my experience shows that pointing out the harm is dangerous if you wish to continue editing on certain subject matter. It appears that pointing to someone's timecard is especially frowned upon. It would be interesting to have comment from ArbCom on whether pointing out, using data from WMF tools, that 1) some people have dominated TP discussion about a topic, and/or that 2) some people are on the project full-time, and/or that 3) coordinated activity / tag-team tactics are being used; constitute "harassment". In general, the tactic at AE (which is an extension of ArbCom in principle at least), seems to be block or ban first, and read the evidence later, if at all (when it concerns defense against "unblockables" using their social capital to bring -- mostly or even "slightly" ^^ -- frivolous cases). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• If we aren't willing to call out rude and unpleasant behavior, how will we recognize a pattern of behavior that may be pushing editors away? If you're being complained about by multiple editors for your style of providing correction, you're doing something wrong, but we'll never realize that Editor X is doing that if we're just saying, "Oh, well. Editing's a rough game. Not for sissies." —valereee (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• In the US, there has been a story of "birding while black" that has been prominent in the news lately, that is an illustrative case of an unsubstantiated complaint. And on-wiki, it's pretty common for users to allege a personal attack or assumption of bad faith when nothing of the sort has actually occurred. (And I've noticed that such users are sometimes quite casual about making personal attacks or the like, themselves.) If something is unsubstantiated, then it's unsubstantiated, and that's that. The accuser should have the decision explained to them in a considerate and emphatic way, but if they cannot accept it, that's their problem. But the threshold should not be that it has to be full-throated harassment. If the accused is being chronically unpleasant, but not really doing what they were accused of, it's appropriate to issue a commensurate warning or advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I've said before that both experienced and new editors need to show understanding. The expectations on experienced editors has been much discussed. New editors need to appreciate that the Wikipedia community is imperfect, and is certainly going to respond in less-than-optimal ways at times. We should strive to be as welcoming as possible, even when providing negative feedback, but the nature of any community is that they'll be conflicts, and people often aren't going to respond to you in the way you think they should.
  Noticeboards aren't a great way to provide feedback to editors set in their ways. Even respected editors have trouble with providing a quiet word of feedback in these situations in a way that will produce in a positive result. It's just all the much harder for a large group of editors of varying levels of interpersonal skills to do so. To defuse behavioural problems, we need content dispute resolution procedures that can deal with disputes more effectively, thereby reducing the incentive for poor behaviour such as unsubstantiated complaints. isaacl (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• The answer is in the question itself: legitimate criticisms. If someone is legitimately criticizing something which you are doing wrong, the solution is to start doing it right, not to complain that you keep getting caught or seek sanctions against the one who does so. The solution is to tell the complainant both that criticism is par for the course when one participates in a collaborative endeavor and that a thick enough skin to hear it is necessary, and that if you want to stop getting legitimate criticism about something you actually shouldn't be doing, stop doing that! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Sigh. WP:PAIN was closed years ago, we don't really have a way to enforce civility. Some people are civil, some are much less so, and the line is too blurry. Which is why in real world you don't get sentenced for being uncivil. There may be some laws we could adapt and issue warning based on clearly identifiable transgressions such as saying 'fuck', but this would be rather... amusing, to say the least. Frankly, I'd rather see a strong enforcement of the rule 'don't discuss other editors outside AN(I)/AE or relevant boards'. That might be more useful. But again, we would need to consider why PAIN failed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• "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?" No, civility warnings should only be issued for real, strong instances of incivility, not for unpleasantness, or sarcasm, or rudeness, or scatology not directed at people, or simply to make another editor feel better. Wikipedia exists to help create and improve an encyclopedia it's not a therapeutic community or a sociological "safe place" or your mother's bosom. As long as editors are improving the encyclopedia, and generally behaving themselves within tolerable limits, then they should be allowed to go about their business without being hassled. Harassment cases should be about real, actual harassment, and not about someone's bruised feelings because they're not being treated like the royalty they believe themselves to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Editors behaving as rudely as the rules allow shouldn’t be subjected to harassment complaints, but they also shouldn’t be given validation of that behaviour, because it is detrimental to the encyclopedia. They should be given constructive feedback on how they could improve their on-wiki interactions.--Trystan (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are multiple aspects to this question, and while I generally agree with much of the above it is not always going to be as black and white as some are painting it. If editor a finds editor b uncivil, it might be because editor a is being uncivil, it might be because editor b is being overly sensitive about their work, or it might be a bit of both. For example, if editor a is giving other users templated warnings faster than they can be responded to or following responses of "I don't understand" with just another template then then both editors need to be told to adjust their behaviour in a manner that they understand but editor a's problem is not one that civility warnings will likely help with. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I am surprised to see little mention of interaction bans above; surely many interpersonal conflicts could be resolved if they were employed with greater frequency? --JBL (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• The first part to have to say is that while we do want to be welcoming, Wikipedia is not a daycare or therapy center for people who get their feelings hurt by valid criticism or being told that Wikipedia isn't their personal blog to say and do whatever they want. That goes triple for anyone who's feelings are hurt because they may lose a paycheck when their edits reverted. We do (and should) have a low tolerance for paid or COI editors who selfservingly create a drain on volunteer time and labor - I'm not getting a paycheck to clean up your poor work.
  Now... if someone is making valid-criticism in a somehow egregious manner... that generally doesn't require ARBCOM and if it does rise to ARBCOM it absolutely not a case that should be handled in secrecy. One of many reasons is that the community still needs to clean up the correctly-identified bad-work by the complainant in the past or the future. Alsee (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

5. Plausible deniability

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

• A central principle operating behind criminal burdens of proof (innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) is that it is better to let a hundred guilty people go free rather than send one innocent person to prison. That is not the case with harassment enforcement on Wikipedia. The goal here is not justice, but building a good encyclopedia. Blocks are not punitive, but designed to prevent disruption. The appropriate standard of proof is a balance of probabilities.--Trystan (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• WP:AGF is a real thing for a very good reason (IMO, it is our single most important policy). If Arbs cannot subscribe to it, they shouldn't be arbs. "Plausible deniability" is speculation, and we have recently seen arb decisions based on favoritism and pseudo-evidence, so to extend speculative powers further would be unhelpful. For a sitting arb to make this kind of statement (impugning one's character and motives on an arbcase page) is unacceptable, and that we have such statements from a sitting arbs gives a good indication of where this "plausible deniability" could lead; what on earth is meant by "usually knows how to avoid wording it as a direct personal attack"? I don't make personal attacks, period. Since we have recently seen a decision where the arbs gave clear indications of not having read the evidence, with one arb acknowledging a decision based on personalities and not evidence, we must accept that arbs are human, and not extend further rights to base decisions on presumptions rather than evidence that everyone can see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Typically, if there is an attack, there is some behavior that triggered, or appears to have triggered the attack. If the "victim's" editing history is problematic, and the "attack" can't be tied definitively to the alleged attacker, the Arbitration Committee should always consider the possibility that the "victim" manufactured the attack to get rid of the alleged attacker. There should be no presumption that an attack actually occurred and the problem is merely one of figuring out which editor launched it. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• With the carefully-worded statement that has a chilling effect, Arbcom need to decide whether they're confident the perpetrator had mens rea. With the off-wiki stuff, Arbcom need to make the best determination they can on the basis of the evidence they can get. This is going to be messy and involve judgment calls, and Arbcom will make mistakes.—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• The same as we would with SPI or any admin block. Without reasonably clear evidence of a policy violation, you don't sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• As I said above, Wikipedia is not a legal system, ArbCom is not a court, and there is no inherent right to edit Wikipedia. We should absolutely not be creating procedural rights or standards when it comes to blocking. There is no presumption of innocence in either the blocking policy or the harassment policy precisely because on a website there is almost always going to be plausible deniability and arguably reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a reasonable standard for a private website. It should be based on weighing probabilities and judgement, but there is absolutely not as high a standard as in a criminal case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think the legal standard of proof is relevant here. In the two situations cited it would be perfectly reasonable to sanction the user. It is often going to be impossible for us to definitively prove that external accounts are tied to a certain person, expecting that would make harassment policies toothless. Deliberately skirting harassment rules also shouldn't be a reason to evade punishment. Hut 8.5 16:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• DUCK-like standards, because editing Wikipedia is comparatively 'no big deal'. Besides, even in their most rigorous use in the legal system, legal standards are no fail-safe, to begin with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think it has to be a case-by-case thing that rests on common sense. There is the possibility of false flags. Obnoxious stuff at other sites, really is the responsibility of those sites and not us, and we do not have to enforce a user's "right" to participate at other websites. But for that, or for more serious forms of off-wiki harassment, it comes down to a good-faith commonsense judgment for ArbCom to make, whether someone is the user that they appear to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• For anything off-wiki, the link between the off-wiki and on-wiki account would have to be absolutely definitive and proven. Any lesser standard is an invitation for editors to joe job those who they would like to be rid of. On the other hand, when the conduct is on-wiki, personal attacks are not the only grounds for sanctioning an editor. Behavior which is clearly intended to be disruptive and provocative, even if it does not quite cross the line into blatant personal attacks, is still disruptive conduct and still grounds for warnings or sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Trystan, TonyB and Hut. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
• ArbCom should use good old-fashioned common sense: if it looks like a statement has been carefully crafted for its plausible deniability, assume that is the case, and act as if the statement is meant negatively. The very act of creating such a statement is itself a piece of evidence which supports the alleged harassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I generally agree with Seraphimblade and Hut 8.5. If someone is making harassing comments on wiki then that editor needs to be sanctioned on wiki, regardless of who they are in real life. If the harassment is off-wiki then we need to be as sure as we can be about a link before taking on-wiki action. If a link is found we should, as far as allowed by the privacy policy, share that with the anti-harassment bodies on external sites (who we must do all we can to encourage victims to engage with). Regarding joe jobs, we absolutely need to be careful here, but part of that is assessing the liklihood of that - is there any evidence to suggest someone would want to frame someone else and that person specifically, and is there any evidence to suggest that a specific person might be behind that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'll just say I expect ARBCOM to be careful, without putting any hard slant on it. I'm not sure what kind of "carefully worded" statements you have in mind, but I'd be careful about shoving bad-faith interpretations inside someone else's head. Regarding offsite accounts, we already match on-wiki editing by the DuckTest, although with offsite accounts there more risk of something like a joe job. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

6. Arbitration environment

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

• I would say the question is not fully elaborated or correct: in some cases, when "clerks and arbitrators do not attempt to manage the pages" (in fact, do not even read or respond to questions on the pages), the likelihood that they will be "attacked" (that is, held responsible) increases. Yes, they should more actively engage, read, answer questions, and remove false claims that are not based on evidence. The problem I have seen is a complete lack of engagement and adequate clerking. If someone presents a statement that is not based on evidence, a clerk should be querying the poster or removing the text. Arbs should be actively monitoring their noticeboard and all case pages, and actually respond to questions asked of them. They do not and have not recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• In the most fraught cases, consider using separate subpages for each party, where the parties talk to clerks rather than each other.—S Marshall T/C 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Wouldn't this mean either a lot of people miss out on context or happenings, or it basically boils down to threaded discussion? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• They are longer and more formal versions of ANI, and the atmosphere is no worse than ANI. It is fine to have more clear cut rules, but at the same time, you have to expect that emotions will pour out. From what I have seen, the clerk have the authority and ability to "trim the fat" when needed. Clearer rules, ok, but clamping down is likely to have the opposite effect, and just push problems to many areas of the encyclopedia, including personal talk pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• To some extent, there is a difference between understandable stress and the continuation of disruptive behavior onto case pages. I think people can be allowed a significant amount of venting on pages like WT:ACN. But I'd very much like to see more active patrolling of case pages. For evidence pages, any word limits or the like should be enforced, and people who, for example, post something without diffs should get a polite message from a clerk at their usertalk, advising them how to do it right. I think that workshop pages are where things have the greatest risk of going badly, and I'd like to see more active enforcement of civility expectations. There is a real problem of some good-faith editors who are reluctant to participate in cases, out of fear of it becoming too unpleasant to do so, and ArbCom loses out on useful input when that happens. Workshop pages have spaces for comments by Arbs, and Arbs should use that to caution against bad conduct on the workshop page. (There should always be a warning before banning anyone from further participation in a case. The concern about suppressing a legitimate point of view is largely solved by that.) And Arbs should look at these things in context: the editor who is nasty to other editors on case pages is different from the editor who becomes upset in reaction to that nastiness. (Although it's not the question asked, Arbs and clerks, but particularly Arbs, also need to be more attentive to answering questions in a timely way.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally I think the issues are two-fold - the more direct, obvious and frequent the engagement clerks and especially arbs have with a case the less likely it is to get out of hand, for example if obvious errors or non-starters in proposals are called out officially then they are less likely to be repeated, if a back-and-forth is shut down before it gets out of hand, it wont get out of hand. The second aspect is that there should be a strongly enforced policy of two-strikes and you are out for misbehaviour during a case - misbehave and you get a warning, do something similar again and that's the end of your participation in the case, regardless of whether you are a party or an observer, with blocks also a possibility for egregious examples. However certain things should not need a warning, e.g. the most obvious personal attacks, reverting an official clerk or arb action without explicit permission, or other unquestionably bad faith contribution should see removal from participation in the case as a first step with further sanction to be discussed if desired. Poor behaviour during a case should also feature in the final decision, with the possibility of sanctions like a standing warning for future arbitration cases or prohibition on participation in cases where they are not a party being considered. Arbcom should also be free to pass official comment and/or sanction on the behaviour of everyone who has participated in a case, whether a party or not. I'd also suggest that expulsions from the case should be recorded as findings of fact, even if no further action is felt desirable at that time, so that it is on record. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, they should be more closely managed.
  • First, civility and decorum should be rigorously enforced. I have seen multiple case requests where editors commenting on the request have insulted other editors, sometimes with vulgar profanity, or cast aspersions, or even called for the filer to be indef'd for filing the case request (I can provide examples if that's helpful, but I'm not doing it so as not to drag up old stuff). Predictably, this has a chilling effect. The most I've ever seen is one editor be warned once. This sort of behavior should result in, at least, a formal warning, every single time it happens. Some have expressed the opinion that because Arbcom cases are high-stress areas, more leeway should be given to editors to blow off steam. I think the very opposite should be done: we should be more formal, more professional, and give less leeway for incivility, because it's a high-stress environment. Keeping it clean helps keep it orderly. This is why the standards of decorum are rigorously enforced in every court. Active management of decorum on case pages will make the environment less stressful, and will encourage productive participation from more editors.
  • Second, Arbs should engage much more directly with participants, and much earlier in the process. An Arbcom case is kind of like a black box. You present the case request, and maybe it's an accept or maybe not, then there are evidence and workshop phases where many arbs stay totally silent, then the always-exasperating wait for a PD, and then--BOOM--a PD issues, and we all hear Arb's comments for the first time. I've heard some Arbs say they don't read any of a case until the PD is posted. This almost always results in a disconnect between participants and arbitrators. I'm surprised every time I read a PD, to see how the Arbs view the evidence and workshop phases. It seems in every case, we find out, very late, at the PD stage, that large swaths of the evidence and workshop pages are viewed as not relevant by a number of Arbs. Boy, it'd be useful to know that at the outset, instead of finding out at the end.
  • What arbs should do is to provide feedback early in the evidence phase, at the end of the evidence phase, and throughout the workshop phase. Arbs should engage in Q&A: they should ask for the evidence they want to see. They should say what evidence they think is irrelevant. They should say which workshop proposals they think are worth pursuing, and which are non-starters. Interaction, not word limits, is what will bring efficiency to the process. I'm sure of this much: Arbs don't want to read 100k, and editors don't want to write it, either. But when you're presenting evidence and workshop proposals into a black box and get no feedback, you don't know what to do other than to send everything, in the hopes that in there will be something that helps the Arbs. Active feedback from arbs throughout the case presentation will help editors focus their efforts, and save everybody time.
  • Clerks can enforce decorum. Only arbs can give substantive feedback on a case. I'm sure both groups could do this without suppressing legitimate points of view. It doesn't have to be heavy-handed: clerks shouldn't ban participants from case pages for one unkind word, nor should arbs prohibit a workshop proposal from being posted simply because they disagree with it. But clerks could give a lot more warnings, and arbs can give feedback that is helpful instead of stifling (e.g., say why you like or don't like a proposal, or find evidence useful or irrelevant, rather than simply declaring things "good" or "bad"). Someone will always complain, but the goal shouldn't be to avoid all complaints, but rather to have an open, efficient, and fair process. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

7. "Unblockables"

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

• I think admonishments still carry weight, serving as a final warning by the Committee before actual sanctions are applied. El_C 14:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• The Committee has recently solidified that there are in fact priviledged editors for whom they will not even put forward findings of fact such that arb enforcement has something to act upon should the behaviors continue. In a case where it was well evidenced and understood that the community had not and would not act, the arb committee failed to even put forward enough findings of fact so that some brave admin might be able to act in the future. So, we have a real problem here, not only at the community level, but also at the arbcom level, that can only be addressed via more careful attention to arbcom elections and more opposes at RFA of editors who simply have not demonstrated time in the trenches building articles, as those kinds of editors tend to turn into admins and arbs who make such mistakes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Eric Corbett is the example for this question, I'm sure. I don't think any change is needed. How this is handled varies from year to year, depending on who is at Arb, and I don't see any rule change as making a difference. What makes someone "unblockable" (and I disagree with that assessment) is solely the support they have from the community, not any restriction or limitation of Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am not sure Eric can be characterized as "unblockable" considering how often he was blocked, and not always with good reason. There are true unblockables that we should be considering-- for example, admins who editwar at great length across many articles and many years after an arbcom block for edit warring, and yet are never blocked. Or who insert POV into articles based on COI and aren't even admonished. That is the definition of "unblockable", that Eric certainly was not. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• I only meant he was heralded by many as the poster child for "unblockable" for many years, but I get your points. Odd enough, I worked with him on many articles and found him a delight to work with, but a pita in many respects, as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Simple: accept user conduct cases that have had several AN/I threads with a low threshold. Recognize that "unblockables" are protected with premature AN/I closes, non-policy based calls for a boomerang and counter-pile-ons by friends who pop up every time the user is being discussed. --Pudeo (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Everything that Pudeo just said. If a user has a long history of noticeboard reports that almost always end without action being taken (often with a few blocks that were quickly lifted somewhere in the mix), there is a high probability that the community has become incapable of dealing with the editor's behavior. It is for situations like these that the Arbitration Committee was created. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

+to what Pudeo said.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• If someone has a pattern of unacceptable behaviour then it needs to stop, one way or another. If they aren't willing to change and we aren't able to come up with an effective sanction then a ban is the only remaining option. I agree with the suggestion that ArbCom should be more willing to take this type of case, the arbitration process isn't nearly as vulnerable as the noticeboards where it's almost impossible to deal with unblockable editors. Hut 8.5 16:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is complicated. I think in response to FRAM ArbCom has, understandably, been more active than probably needed. While every ArbCom candidate says they don’t think a case necessitates sanctions, I’ve yet to see that actually happen. Once a case is opened at the very least someone is getting admonished and usually a TBAN or desysop.
  I think the recent portals case is a good example of the type of case where the structure of the proceedings resulted in an outcome that wasn’t in the best interest of the project (the BHG desysop.) Noticeboards are more visible so while people’s friends are more likely to comment, so are more uninvolved community members. The “pre-mature” closes discusses above aren’t always pre-mature, and usually the community is fairly capable of pointing out bad conduct on all sides. ArbCom cases are by design away from the community boards in other to give a structured space to present evidence. This has the negative ramifications of usually involving only people who have some interest in the case scope. For civility cases, it can easily turn into a railroading. The committee in good faith acts on the information presented, and then people get mad after the fact because of an unfair outcome that they weren’t aware of that impacts someone they respect.
  Tl;dr: there is a role for ArbCom here, but I don’t think it should be more active in enforcing it than it currently is. Honestly, I think that in reaction to FRAM this ArbCom has probably become more active than desirable in these cases. This is a project full of people with issues over power structures. Having the closest thing to a power structure we have more actively policing day to day fights is not going to end well. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

• I think there's really two categories here as to why someone could be an "unblockable" - high edit/high content users who are sometimes uncivil, and administrators. As far as the latter, there has always been a stigma at blocking administrators who do something that would have gotten a non-admin blocked. Perhaps this should not be. --Rschen7754 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Three categories: Unblockables I are high-quality /volume content users, Unblockables II are administrators, Unblockables III are users who have a lot of wiki-friends, either via affiliates / ,eetups or via activity in Wikiprojects.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  You left off the most truly unblockables: WMFers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  They are not unblockables. They are not even Wikipedia editors (at least not under their WMF accounts, and I can not recall any problem with any of their volunteer accounts in the last five years). In this sense, they are just bureaucrats (not in the Wikipedia crat sense) performing some functions. Whereas I agree with the sentiment below that the WMF culture must change (and it would be great if ours could change as well), the WMF problem has no relation to the problem of unblockables.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that, through a bunch of practices, coalitions etc. admins are defacto exempt from any review, accountability, guidance etc. except by arbcom. And the high bar and big deal that it takes to be an arbcom case means that 99% of the needs for admin accountability, review, guidance etc. will never get taken care of. We need an additional venue to handle the other 99%. Probably a group of 5-10 people with immense experience, thoroughness, self-control and objectivity that could individually handle these cases. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• One of the first action after becoming an admin was starting Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions along with a former Arb. Participation was marginal, even with heavy notifications. There have been many other proposals, each getting about the same response. The community has a history of getting very luke warm once you put an idea in front of them. I have no idea why, but the idea of an accountability board for everything short of an Arb case has been shot down every time, which is why you seldom see action against admin. And yes, most of the time, admin hesitate before blocking another admin, no matter how much they would like to say otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• To some extent, the word "unblockables" is what is in the eye of the beholder. There's no single answer for all cases. It's appropriate to consider an editor's overall contributions to the project when determining remedies. But the same policies need to apply to everyone. This has been hard for the community to deal with effectively, so ArbCom definitely has a role here. Also, I disagree with the opinion that ArbCom has become overly harsh after Framgate. I've followed some recent cases where editors have railed against ArbCom for some decisions, but I think ArbCom got those right, and if anything ArbCom is too hesitant to deal with incivility that falls short of clear-cut personal attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Judging from some comments directed at me on AN/I, I believe that there are editors on en.Wiki who see me as "unblockable", but in need of being shown the door. On the other hand, other editors (or even the same editors at other times) will point to my (sadly) all-too-extensive block log as proof that I'm a bad dude and need to be given the boot. (I can't win for losing.) This, perhaps, gives me a somewhat unique perspective on this question.
  I, too, have perceived a small number of other editors as being "unblockable", but over the course of years, many of those editors have been substantially blocked, or indeffed, or topic banned from their primary subjects and have walked away on their own. In truth, then, it seems that being "unblockable" is a matter of perception and context. It's really just the age-old balancing question writ large: is this editor a "net positive" or a "net negative"?
  In most cases, it's fairly easy to evaluate that: brand new editors who misbehave or are disruptive without having made any substantial contributions to the project may be given a second chance, but is still often blocked easily. Obviously, it's a lot harder to make that judgment with an editor who's been here for a long time and has a substantial corpus of productive editing. Further, longevity confuses the issue because -- no matter how much we long for a collegial editing community -- the reality is that many of us can be, at times, cantankerous or ornery, and others of us can be oblivious to the effect they are having on other editors. This means that the longer one is here, the more likely it is that one is going to get into disputes with others. This underscores the perception of being "unblockable"; if one edits a lot, and therefore is seen at numerous places across the project, and gets into disagreements, but never seems to get the "just desserts" that would seem to be coming, the "unblockable" tag would be almost inevitable.
  Unfortunately, I have little by way of recommendations as to what to do in regard to "unblockable" editors, except to continue to evaluate their worth to the project in terms of productive contributions, and attempt to weigh that against their behavior. There's no easy answer here: it would be foolhardy to eject excellent content creators willy-nilly simply because they rub some editors the wrong way, but it's also detrimental to allow them to have free reign to misbehave. Admonitions, warnings, interaction bans, topic bans, and short blocks should all be utilized as seem appropriate under the circumstances. One thing should be avoided, though, which is to block "unblockable" editors simply because they are perceived to be unblockable. There's generally a reason that they've been around long enough to be labelled that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I enjoyed reading this thoughtful and self-reflective comment. --JBL (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• The answer to this is beyond simple: Arbcom should siteban said unblockables to save the community from the trouble of having to enforce these elaborate half-measures which merely delay that inevitable outcome. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• ArbCom should evaluate the behavior of an "unblockable" the same way as anyone else. If that would call for a site ban, site ban them. If that calls for restrictions, restrict them. If that calls for no action, do nothing. This is a collaborative project, and no one should be above expectations to treat others decently and civilly. Sure, nobody's perfect and we all have bad days, but if someone's constantly being an ass toward others, that can't be allowed to happen with impunity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. Whether Wikipedia likes it or not, and whether or not it's acknowledged officially, Wikipedia is a meritocracy -- a project such as this could hardly be anything else and succeed. Because it is a meritocracy, evaluations of behavioral problems need to be made in conjunction with evaluations of the editors' worth to the project, that's just simple good sense. Having a zero-tolerance policy is almost always a bad idea, since it shifts responsibility for thinking up the food chain to an authoritarian figure farther removed from the front lines. This is why I have an almost-zero-tolerance for zero-tolerance policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I believe I was clear I was not talking about "zero-tolerance": Sure, nobody's perfect and we all have bad days.... And no one's suggesting we should ban excellent editors for a few intemperate comments over a period of years. But what I'm talking about is when people think that, because they write good stuff, they can behave however they like toward anyone else anytime they like. That, I will absolutely not go for. So, certainly not "zero tolerance", but no one should get unlimited tolerance either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Your comment, BMK, helps to focus the problem: those who have lots of free time become more equal than those who can only work occasionally for the projects. Now, some people have this free time due to retirement or other handsome settlements from their former employers, while others are, in fact, paid for their participation here. (cf. the recent investigation at fr.wp mentioned in this month's Signpost) The wiki-merit of this class of "under-employed" knowledge workers is likely perceived to be quite high in terms of gnoledge production.

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)

• It's good that ArbCom is considering this, because IMHO this is quite true - some people think they are above the wiki-law, and likely, are. What gets one person blocked won't get another one. I do have a solution for it, but it's likely a dead horse: admins should not be granted their privileges for life, but for a period of 2-5 years, and then they should require re-election. This won't solve everything, but would be a major help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• That will make the problem worse. If an admin blocks an unblockable, then when they come up for confirmation all the unblockable's friends will oppose their RfA because of their outrageous block. Realistically the threat of this will just deter the admin from making the block in the first place. Hut 8.5 12:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  What you are saying is true, but the other side of the coin is that admin re-election would likely result in the removal of admins who have failed to live up to community expectations. The problem is that this system could easily become politicized (i.e. X opposes Y's re-election because Y oppose Z's re-election and X supported Z). I think community de-adminship is a better solution, but the reality is that such proposals will always be derailed because of the sizable influence of admins who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Pudeo way up-thread, arbcom needs to be prepared to accept cases for investigation based on an extensive history of low-level behavioural issues, even if there is no single egregious thing that can be said to have crossed any particular line. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Block them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• A wonderfully simplistic solution - throw out the baby with the bathwater (you can always get another baby). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not necessarily limited to "unblockables", but I have a concrete idea that might help certain kinds of situations. The way things are supposed to work when there is a dispute is that uninvolved editors form the basis of a consensus. A vulnerability of our system is that it's often not hard for someone to bring in enough allies to prevent a proper outcome. I once closed a 20-vs-10 RFC in favor of the 10, where the illegitimacy of the 20 was particularly blatant. It's a lot more difficult to disregard the votecount when a discussion is undermined by a stack of well established editors. When there is a repeating problem, I think the solution is to make sure we get back to a consensus of uninvolved parties. Previous participants would be allowed to comment, but the issue gets resolved by consensus of only previously uninvolved editors. If someone has been undermining the consensus process by calling in paid/COI/ideological-crusader/friends or other allies to vote opposite the norm, they will basically have burned out their ability to do so in the new discussion. Alsee (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• That won't work, and is too easily gamed. In a recent case, people claiming to be "uninvolved" showed up who were far more involved than the actual participants, and had involved people claiming their "involved" friends were uninvolved, when the "uninvolved but very involved" friends were there out of pure partisanship. And in complex cases, the uninvolved just might not get it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

8. Relationship with T&S

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

• I don't know what will work to address this problem, but I can say one thing that won't work-- electing an ArbCom that holds WMF, WMF employees, or WMF board members above the standards of the rest of the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• To me, the WMF's hamfisted and tone-deaf handling of that matter suggests that the WMF should go back to providing technical support and server space, and leave the governance and direction of en.wiki to the en.wiki community.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• See my user page. Over the years, there has crept in an attitude that WMF is above the community instead of being a partner. That is a systemic attitude problem that the community can't fix, only the leadership of the WMF can, over time. We are not "the little people" and many of us resent the attitude of the WMF when dealing with community members, for good reason. Most of the interactions I've had with WMF have left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. I haven't had that with Arb, even when I've disagreed with them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • re Dennis Brown could you elaborate further here on why you believe that the community cannot address this systemic attitude problem, which is a real problem? Because I would point out that there is one WMF person that I know of who does not fit the mold, and we should be finding ways to have More Like Her. Surely it is somehow doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I refer to WMF as an entity, and there are probably many fine individuals within that entity. The ham-fisted approach to Fram is a good example, which demonstrated they can do whatever they want, and it took a virtual online riot to get them to hand off to Arb instead. They have all the power, they can lock the whole place down, or black out for a day, or do any number of unwise things we simply don't have the power to do or stop, so any change must start with the ones with power, not the community. Again, my user page explains my perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Dennis Brown. Although your user page states that We are not subjects of the WMF. We do not work for you. We are not beneath you. We owe you nothing; we are volunteers. We are trying to work WITH you to create something special, but you have to give us the same respect you demand for yourselves. this is increasingly less and less true. With limited exceptions, it is WMF employees who have made editing here a rather miserable experience, with increasingly less concern about accuracy in content or adherence to en.Wikipedia policy. And I guess you are right there is little we can do about that, except vote with our feet by retiring, quietly leaving, or stopping editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I think we are more or less on the same page. I had handed in my bit then after a while came back, and honestly, I'm not extremely active, because of the WMF. I'm trying to be open minded and see if they turn it around, stop trying to dictate to the community on things the community can handle, but I'm not filled with hope. I'm happy to be a volunteer partner, but I'm not willing to be an unpaid employee. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I appreciate that has been your experience. Personally, the editors that have made my experience a poor one are not Wikimedia Foundation employees. So while I have no issues with trying to improve that aspect, there are plenty of structural issues that are entirely within the purview of the community to manage. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• For the most part, I agree with S Marshall. With few exceptions, incidents should be addressed in-house (within the scope of the English Wikipedia), including but not limited to the role of the Arbitration Committee itself. El_C 15:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• When someone is calling in bomb threats on Wikipedia, stalking them in real life, or a pedophile, T&S should take over. ArbCom can ban locally as an initial measure, but per the rest of my comments here: they are not a court and have no power or ability to help other than by blocking. Let professionals deal with things that could involve law enforcement. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  That is nice, concise way of putting it. ANI/Arb should handle everything else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  For sure, I also agree with Tony that T&S has a key role to play in these sort of extreme cases. El_C 15:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I have walked this walk twice, and there is NO CHANCE I would call in anyone from T&S, since it is about "trust", and the people I trust are not there. We can deal with the police for the real life aspect, and the arbs for desysopping and blocking, and trust them to handle it expeditiously and confidentially. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  That’s fair, and I don’t think anyone would say you should be forced to (or at least I wouldn’t say that.) I know of at least one case where they were helpful connecting a user with the FBI (told to me by the user in question), so I think they can be a useful resource, but I acknowledge that after FRAM many in this community are skeptical of them. That should be an individual choice as to whether to reach out to them as a resource. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with this as well. T&S should also have a role in dealing with cases involving serial ban evasion. MER-C 18:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Per MER-C, more T&S action against serial upe and extreme crosswiki harassment would be useful. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, what if WMF was the one to complain to the ISPs in such cases instead of some random volunteer? I suspect that the complaint might get more traction. --Rschen7754 02:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Only one real comment here, relating to WMF/T&S and the Fram case. There are some excellent people on the T&S team, but what that team suffered was a failure of leadership. Bodies like that need leadership that is open to input, to listening, and to discussion. Dictatorial leadership, which is what we saw, is a barrier to any kind of proper interaction between WMF/T&S/ArbCom/Community. So that's something WMF needs to get right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's what my response above means; when one is threatened, the last people one will call in is people one cannot trust because of repeated demonstrated competence issues. If my only option way back then had been to call in T&S, I would have left Wikipedia instead. I trust people who have demonstrated competence via editing with me in the trenches, to an extent that I know they won't mess up when someone's life is being threatened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• To answer the question about the relationship between Arbcom & TS: Last year, before the contretemps, Arbcom had the meeting with T&S, some communication over the issue occurred but evidently not enough. What should have happened in that affair is what should continue to happen, regularly meet with each other over matters, communicate, and discuss them. Since this RfC is being run by Arbcom, my message to Arbcom is to do better at those things and get T&S to do better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Several years ago, there was a discussion I think on the Arbcom pages about, inter alia the Terms of Use. One strain of thought, there, if I recall correctly was that despite the fact that we are all bound by the Terms of Use, including every Arbcom member being so bound, it was posited that only the WMF should be enforcing the Terms of Use on English Wikipedia. That does not seem to square with some of the more adamant, no WMF involvement positions. In every post we make on this website, we agree to be bound by the Terms of Use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• At the risk of derailing this discussion, it's not just T&S, it's all of WMF. Evidence: superprotect, WP:FRAM, Visual Editor, Universal Code of Conduct, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. Unfortunately, to fix this problem, an entire culture change has to take place at WMF.
  That all being said: arbitrators need to be willing to call out bad behavior on the part of the WMF, in private, but sometimes in public as happened last year. And in converse, if WMF believes that there are issues on a particular wiki, they should feel free to bring them up to the community for discussion. And yes, legal matters should continue to be referred to WMF. --Rschen7754 18:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Rschen7754, because the WMF culture (and most of its staff/employees/board whatever they are called) is a very serious problem. But, we also need to elect arbs who will stand up to WMF abuses rather than avoid them. They went a good distance this year in finally dealing with some abusive admins, but then seriously punted when real action on a serious case was needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've recently started to warm to the idea of more active involvement by T&S, which is something that I'm surprised to hear myself say, because I sure did not think that way circa Framgate. I think T&S are correct that en-wiki has become ineffective at dealing with "toxic" behavior. Make a clear-cut personal attack, a la calling someone something that is vulgar, and we usually deal with it. But engage in prolonged dismissiveness, and both ArbCom and the community have become too accepting of that. Looking at the long back-and-forth sections of ANI where nothing gets resolved but a lot of angry words get said, it's reasonable to ask whether there is an institutional failure going on. Not that I believe T&S to be competent to fix that sort of thing on big, established wikis. But I'm in favor of a sort of collaborative approach between ArbCom and T&S. ArbCom should have jurisdiction here for anything that does not have to go to WMF legal, and T&S should back off. But T&S can still give advice to which ArbCom should listen. I'd like ArbCom to consider the kinds of "toxic, incivil" conduct that T&S talks about, and take it more seriously. The old essay at User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism is actually more timely than ever. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• T&S should become only involved where either interaction with law enforcement is likely to be necessary (child predators, threats of harm and violence), where they are literally required to (formal legal processes/court orders), or in the one instance it has widely been considered acceptable for them to do so (severe cross-wiki abuse). Beyond that, the community should handle most problems, with ArbCom there to handle issues which either involve private/off-wiki evidence or where the community has proved unable to resolve the problem. The ArbCom should remain a fully independent body from T&S. Or in short, basically "How we do it today; keep doing that." T&S is, of course, welcome to provide advice to ArbCom or the community (after all, anyone's free to do that), but whether to accept or reject such advice should be solely ArbCom's/the community's decision. Beyond offering input, T&S should never become involved in local governance or local enforcement questions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Seraphimblade above me in toto. I do not want to see more T&S involvement here outside the areas which Seraphimblade lists, as I do not trust their judgement, and there is no way for us to have influence over their makeup, as we do with ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with Tryptofish. T&S and Arbcom need to work in partnership with each other, with Arbcom referring matters to T&S that it cannot or should not handle for whatever reason (legal issues, child protection issues, cross-wiki abuse, etc) and T&S referring matters to Arbcom that the latter is better placed to handle. Both should refer to the other for non-binding advice and opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• T&S staff members have no place on ENWP and should be banned from any involvement in any aspect of its administration or interaction with its editors or Arbcom. The WMF culture of gravy-train activism are completely at odds with ENWPs culture. The current T&S team contains a number of individuals who have repeatedly shown they lack judgement even in the area in which they are supposedly employed (check their CV's and do some online digging into their past employment if you want the gory details). WMF staff members have a basic conflict of interest in that their personal employment is dependant on doing what their bosses say, regardless of the actual facts in the case. We have seen how that pans out with how they jump when WMF insiders make spurious complaints about ENWP editors justifiably criticising them. There should be no co-operation with the T&S team until they are completely replaced. And we need to elect arbitors who have a spine to stand up to the WMF rather than rolling over and showing their belly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is vaguely offtopic, but a real undercurrent is that, given enwiki's outside size and presence among the hundreds of WMF projects, all parties — WMF, ArbCom, our community, other communities — are forced to simultaneously recognize that 1. we're not special and 2. we're special. Any coordination, trust, or structure has to struggle with that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I support Only in death on this with the exception of the research into T & S staff, which I am unprepared to check for its validity and therefore do not use as part of my argument. The WMF are not our bosses, but paid editors of a particularly inept kind with a declared policy of forcing bias into the encyclopedia (the rationale behind their new global behavioral guidelines). T & S have mismanaged the one task for which their existence is justifiable, dealing with report-mandated illegalities such as pedophilia, and in the Fram case showed contempt for the community and perpetrated a serious injustice. The WMF deserves nothing but our scorn and any collaboration with them, especially with T & S, is reprehensible. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Totally agree with Seraphimblade, Only in death and Yngvadottir above. What they said.Smeat75 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Those who followed the in-depth research regarding last year's debacle are aware that T&S was utilized as a tool to silence one of our volunteers who had justifiably criticized the content work of an editor that had WMF ties. That's what happened, even if nobody will ever publicly admit it. As you can imagine, those of us who are aware of the details have zero trust in the individuals responsible for what happened. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• This section is pretty close to unanimous. I will agree with and perhaps go beyond the strongest of the comments above. The Foundation ran a "consultation" with the community where it was agreed that Trust&Safety would stay OUT of low level content squabble claims of harassment. The Board announced a reversal on this, T&S is gearing up to wage a CodeOfConduct war against global consensus, and we are talking about how to better trust them?!?
  That is just the tip of the iceberg. The Foundation-rebranding project had over 90% opposition to a 'Wikipedia' based branding, and they just announced that they are going advance three Wikipedia-based proposals to chose from. They are working on a Masking project which would continue to allow IP's to edit but conceal the IP address from us, making it more difficult to deal with IP abuse. The response was clearly an informal consensus against it, but apparently they plan to go forwards with it anyway. In 2011 they published a strategy to deprecate wikitext - the current strategy is still to eliminate our wikitext engine (called Parser migration project) and apparently still hoping to shift us all into VE with VE's interpretation of a "wikitext mode", and of course still trying to move everything to a VE default. After 6 years the Foundation finally admitted Flow was dead, but the new replacement project (Discussion Tools) basically cloned Flow's back end wikitext corruption design. The Foundation's "answer" to the Superprotect incident was to create a Product Guidance document doubling down on the original issue - declaring that the community is generously allowed to request early deployment of a product and that is the end of that. The Global Strategy process was atrocious - the final document is vague and watered down but it appears certain to spawn multiple crises. I fear we are in the calm before many storms break simultaneously. I fear the best way to restore trust in the WMF is that some day we will have to seek new hosting, and pressure the WMF to transfer the Wikipedia trademark. Then we can happily trust the Foundation to do absolutely anything it wants. Alsee (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  A new hosting is a non-starter. We need to sort this conflict out inside the existing configuration.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Don't be so sure. Enciclopedia Libre is still around, but just the threat of so many leaving for it made even the idea of allowing advertising toxic and untouchable. If things get bad enough, telling them "Fork off" may be the only viable resolution. If enough volunteers leave for the new project, they'll come around pretty damn quick. The English Wikipedia only has value insofar as its volunteers are willing to support it. If we show we no longer are because of what WMF has done, WMF suddenly has an existential threat on their hands, and they will not be able to ignore it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  The issue with a fork is that it would need a critical mass to move. That isn't going to happen because, for however loudly they shout, there is only a small minority of active users who would do so - and more than one of them are not actually very active in improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  And, in addition, Wikipedia 2.0 will need hosting and legal protection from the start. And it will probably would like to collaborate with external parties, so it will need to have people talking to these parties. And all these people will need to be paid. Which means we will need to have finances and fundraising. And a HR. And suddenly we are up with WMF 2.0, and I do not see a single reason to think it would be better than the current WMF.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)