The board resolution aims at "addressing harassment and incivility on Wikimedia projects".
I don't see that this covers "disputes", i.e disputes over content. We can, of course, disagree with someone totally over a topic, as long as we discuss our differences in a civil and respectful way - and consider our opponent's point-of-view and arguments seriously. Regards, Thyge - Sir48 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virusfri. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> Den man. 25. maj 2020 kl. 14.45 skrev DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>: > That's a tricky topic, especially when local dispute resolution bodies > (which should in most cases be approached first, I agree here) cannot solve > the dispute or when multiple projects are involved. At the moment, there is > in fact a lack of such body and of course it should be transparent, > composed of multi-diverse community members who are trained and supported > by professional mediation, etc. as pointed out. Currently, stewards like me > are quite often approached with such topics but this user group is more > focused on technical stuff like userrights. A former steward fellow and I > discussed this topic at the Safety Space at Wikimania. Due to the nature of > the space, the discussion have not been documented but you can find the > presentation with backgrounds of the situation and open questions on > Commons > < > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2019_%E2%80%93_Do_we_need_a_global_dispute_resolution_committee%3F.pdf > >. > Maybe it can give some ideas how to proceed with this. > > Best, > Martin/DerHexer > > > Am So., 24. Mai 2020 um 06:19 Uhr schrieb Aron Demian < > aronmanni...@gmail.com>: > > > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 04:25, AntiCompositeNumber < > > anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Would it be fair to say that: > > > - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a > > > fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with > > > significant community oversight and input > > > - Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable > > > through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community > > > oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved > > > community members > > > - To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement > > > actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as > > > possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy > > > or safety) > > > > > > AntiComposite > > > > > > > Yes! These are fundamental requirements that need to be met by the > process > > that will be implemented in the second phase (Aug - end of 2020). > > It seems there will be an opportunity to incorporate these requirements: > > > > The second phase, outlining clear enforcement pathways, and > > > *refined with** broad input from the Wikimedia communities*, will be > > > presented to the Board > > > for ratification by the end of 2020; > > > > > > I'd add a few more points: > > - To handle workload and different languages, local boards should be > > selected as the first step of the process, with possible escalation to a > > global board if necessary (eg. for conflict-of-interest reason). > > - To minimize bias the boards should consist of people from different > > areas. As long as the local DR processes remain operational (ANI and the > > likes), there should be a clear separation of powers: CoC board members > > should not be involved with local DR to avoid concentration of power. > Being > > an admin should not be a requirement, in fact adminship and dispute > > resolution should be separate roles, as the latter requires specific > > training or experience, which is not part of the requirements to be > admin. > > - There should be at least 2 independent global boards so one can review > > the other's decisions and handle appeals. Cases should be evaluated by > the > > board that has more members unrelated to the involved parties. > > - Functionaries and board members should be regularly reviewed and terms > > limited to a few years. > > > > About the DR process: > > - Most of our communication is publicly visible on-wiki, therefore the > > cases should be resolved in public. Transparency is crucial for community > > review and a great learning opportunity about dispute resolution. > > - Privately handled cases should only happen when all parties agree to > > it, so one party can't use "privacy" as a means to avoid the burden of > > proof. Non-public evidence should only be taken into account if there is > a > > very strong justification, proportional to the sanction that comes from > it. > > - Reports, however, should be created privately and published only when > the > > case opens. Before the case opens the reporter might seek advice and help > > to create the report from people they trust. I've outlined a process > draft > > for this in the context of the User Reporting System > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_system_consultation_2019#Factual,_evidence_based_reporting_tool_-_draft,_proposal > > > > > . > > - Reports should be treated with respect, as the personal experience of a > > person. Nobody should be sanctioned for what a report contains, whether > the > > boards, or the community finds that true or false, as that would be a > > deterrent to reporting influential users, who made a mistake or lost > their > > way. > > - The focus should be on dispute *resolution. *Disputes and the resulting > > reports often start with disagreements, not bad intent towards each > other. > > Mediation is an effective approach to finding a mutually agreeable > > resolution in these situations. Such resolutions create a more > cooperative > > environment and allow for personal growth, learning from mistakes. > > Mediators should be hired and board members offered mediator training to > > support this path. > > - When necessary, only the minimal sanctions should be applied that > prevent > > the reported behaviour, to reduce the abuse potential of blocking. > Partial > > blocks was a great step in this direction: typical conduct issues should > be > > addressed early on with minor sanctions, not after years of misconduct, > > when a ban becomes warranted. Bans and project-wide blocks should only be > > used after numerous escalations and repeated sanctions, or in clear-cut > > cases of extreme misconduct. > > > > Dispute resolution is difficult and often requires effort from all > parties. > > The above approaches are unusual compared to the traditional handling of > > disputes, which often results in one-sided sanctioning of the party with > > less support from the community. However, adopting new ways of dispute > > resolution is necessary to create an inclusive community, where editors > are > > treated equally and fairly, regardless of their status. > > > > These are just superficial thoughts, which I'll detail in the second > phase. > > > > Thanks, > > Aron (Demian) > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virusfri. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
