Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

Blnguyen
Deskana
FayssalF
FloNight
FT2
Jdforrester
Jpgordon
Kirill Lokshin
Matthew Brown (Morven)
Newyorkbrad
Paul August
Sam Blacketer
Thebainer
UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

Charles Matthews

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Question about enforcement 2&3

These are written in a way that appears applicable to all editors. Should we amend Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and similar guidelines to show that ArbCom in the appropriate contact for off-wiki threats? Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So our guidelines should be amended to say, "Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately," yes? I just want to make sure that ArbCom intends to take this duty. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying issue

The underlying issue misses the point, at least in my view. The opposing arbitrators are correct that they are not equipped or empowered to evaluate the legal obligations of any editor. In fact, I imagine they are enjoined from doing so explicitly.

What ArbCom can and should evaluate is whether a warning or notice based on an editors self-perceived obligation under the law to report specific conduct is considered a legal threat such that it violates WP:NLT. Particularly in this case, there was not at any point a threat of *legal action* i.e. the initiation of a proceeding in a legal setting (court, arbitration, law enforcement etc.). Additionally, ArbCom should review whether a single notice of vulnerability to affirmative reporting obligations can constitute harassment.

I realize that ArbCom hesitates to make judgments of such weight - I and others have noted in the recent past the tendency to resolve cases with admonishments and reminders to editors, without dealing with the underlying issue. I think that headway will not be made in this fashion - as Sam noted, these issues will return to ArbCom until action is taken on the underlying problem. In this case, the problem lies in varying interpretations by administrators and former arbitrators of the NLT policy, and ArbCom should take it upon itself to resolve this issue.

^Avruchtalk 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an extremely rare confluence of facts that would create an "obligation" for one editor to report another's Wikipedia editing to the latter's employer or anyone else. Despite your concern that issues of this nature will recur unless the committee makes a more direct pronouncement, I cannot think of any prior case involving this issue. I remain hopeful that what we have seen here is a rare and isolated scenario and that therefore it is not vital to make blanket pronouncements before this case closes.

Ordinarily, a statement that an editor might report a user's editing to his or her employer would constitute a threat prohibited under the harassment policy, although not a legal threat because no legal action is suggested. Where a governmental and particularly a military employer is involved, one could argue that a "legal threat" is involved based on the references to courts-martial. However, I don't see that there is much to be gained by working to classify the inappropriate statements at issue in this case as being one type of prohibited threat rather than another.

The principles that have been adopted in this case are also of relevance. If a user became concerned because he or she believed in the utmost of good faith that another was creating a bona fide personal risk for himself or herself, and communicated such concern to the affected user in a private and sensitive manner, then such communication might possibly serve a useful purpose and the sense of intimidation created by it would be minimized. In at least my opinion and I believe that of the other arbitrators, that was not the scenario at issue here. Hopefully we will see no recurrence from any editor of the type of conduct that led to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above reflects my analysis. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be an unusual confluence of events that triggers a legal requirement to report something done by a Wikipedia editor. Such might include a suicide threat accompanied by identifying information, a threat to a school, a statement implying abuse of a minor, a statement implying misuse of government resources. All such events could trigger one editor to be forced to report as much information as can be found to an authority, and in each case another editor might issue a warning before the information becomes actionable. While I wouldn't expect this to happen frequently, it is my expectation that it will happen again. When it does, it will return to ArbCom because the committee has decided not to resolve the problem now. In the mean time, the message is that such warnings can be construed as harassment depending on how politely they are worded and the nature of the contact between editors. ^Avruchtalk 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I are basically in agreement that it would very rarely be appropriate for an editor to have an obligation to report another, and therefore it would be very rare than an editor would have reason to warn another of the existence of such an obligation. We have said that such a report or warning can, and implied that it usually will, constitute harassment and be totally unacceptable. Your post identifies a few circumstances under which it would actually be appropriate. Personally I would like to have seen proposed finding 5 pass, would would have been more specific about the circumstances at issue in this case, but I've been outvoted on that. Nonetheless, I think we have set the right tone for approaching these issues, to the extent that we can in one particular case on a particular set of facts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning people about on-wiki conduct

This question relates to the proposed enforcements 2 and 3: If such behaviour is observed, is it acceptable to warn the editors involved that they may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration committee, or is this (ironically enough, given the reasons for bringing this case) too likely to be perceived as, or used as, a way to "threaten" people? (ie. "If you don't stop this, I'm going to report you to ArbCom for harassment!" type threats). In other words, when observing behaviour where people may feel obliged to report that behaviour (in this case, possibly inappropriate editing of military computers; in the hypothetical case in future, possible harassment of oneself or others), should the behaviour be reported without warning, or are there still ways to warn and try to de-escalate without making the situation worse? I suspect when things reach such a stage, no amount of warning or de-escalation will help, but some guidance would be appreciated about whether some "warning" stages should now be skipped. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A statement that problematic behavior, if continued, will be reported to an administrator or the Arbitration Committee, should be acceptable as long is there is a good-faith basis for believing that the behavior to be reported is indeed improper. That is the difference between pursuing internal Wikipedia dispute resolution, which is permitted and encouraged, and pursuing disputes in off-wiki legal or other forums, which is not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be a difference between an on-wiki "warning" statement to this effect, or a "warning" statement to this effect in an e-mail sent via the "E-mail this user" link? I can see the latter possibly seeming more threatening, but it might also be seen as a way of having a "quiet word". I'm not even going to bother asking what would happen if such a "warning" statement were made over IRC... (though maybe that is relevant too). ie. Is it permissible to pursue Wikipedia dispute resolution via off-wiki methods, such as e-mail and IRC? And are you effectively saying that the ArbCom is prepared to distinguish between frivolous claims of harassment and genuine ones? Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

Copying my post from User talk:Newyorkbrad#Bullying? (Commenting here as suggested):

While I have no opinion on the case itself (haven't been following it much), the addition of the word "bullying" attached to "threatening and harassing" seems to be problematic in that it's woefully subjective.

All the user need do is stress their point in a discussion and be accused of "bullying".

Any chance someone could pull out a thesaurus and find a more precise word? : ) - jc37 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just would rather not see an editor, debating passionately, being blocked for "bullying". I think that the other two terms are much clearer in usage. - jc37 09:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely; glad you spotted that, and I hope Arbitrators take notice before closing the case. Since the case was about (putative) threatening and harassing, I don't see the point in including the "bullying", which AFAIK doesn't even have an accepted meaning on WP (e.g., it's not on WP:DR, WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA). --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]