Active:
Away/inactive:
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)
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.
Avruch talk 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Active:
Away/inactive:
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)
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.
Avruch talk 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)