In terms of substantive concerns, the ArbCom model is what most non-staff
commenters seem to be caught up on. I'm personally concerned with any
creation of a dispute resolution "class" of editor, since I feel that the
community does a terrible job of mob resolution at places like ANI on
enwiki, or RfC on meta. The less you can exclusively resolve disputes
on-wiki, the better.

And this proposal for an ArbCom is perhaps the most bureaucratic and
expansive one I've ever seen. A regular and supplementary committee? And
one which hears all cases, rather than just appeals? This sounds like a
perfect recipe for diffusing responsibility for blocks/bans and that's not
a good thing. The benefit to individual admins (and whatever the equivalent
is on phab) making decisions about blocks is that you know who did it and
how to appeal it. That's a lot harder when it was done because of a 3-2
vote on some strange committee that will be hard for newcomers or
occasional users to understand the composition of.

Replace the enforcement section with authority for admins (and equivalent)
to add sanctions as they see fit, but with some sort of formal appeal
option like asking another admin, or a small and randomly selected group of
them, or a small and randomly selected group of others.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing that Rachel Nabors post, David; bookmarked. I think
> some on this list are missing the point that codes of conduct are necessary
> to help provide a welcoming and safer environment for marginalized people,
> including the neuroatypical that Tim refers to (somewhat disparagingly). It
> isn't about virtual signaling or earning social justice cred; it's about
> addressing some of the legitimate concerns and fears that prevent people
> including women (of all races), people of color (of all genders), LGBT+
> people, and others from participating fully in spaces and events.
> - Pax aka Funcrunch
> On 2/26/17 9:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 26 February 2017 at 17:49, Tim Landscheidt <>
>> wrote:
>> Eh, they do and that is one of the reasons to oppose the
>>> Code of Conduct.  Its draft implicitly alleges that the
>>> technical spaces currently are a cesspit that is in urgent
>>> need of someone with a rake while protecting actual offend-
>>> ers by granting immunity to "neuroatypical" behaviour.
>> This is a pretty reasonable presumption regarding technical spaces: if
>> you *don't* have a code of conduct, it's a reasonable conclusion from
>> outside that there will be serious unacknowledged problems.
>> e.g. "You literally cannot pay me to speak without a Code of Conduct"
>> This is literally all well-worn discourse territory, but I'm sure if
>> you both persist you can wear everyone down.
>> - d.
>> --
> Pax Ahimsa Gethen |
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to