User:Gtoffoletto/WIKILegal

WIKI Legal: Editor Dispute Resolution

"Cedant arma togae, concedant laurea linguae."/"Weapons shall make way to togas, military might shall be replaced by eloquence" Cicero 60 a.C.

The problem

2017 survey regarding AN/I reports

Highlights:

• Only 27% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the way that AN/I cases are handled.
• 52.99% have specifically avoided making a report on ANI because they were afraid it would not be handled appropriately.
• More than six in ten participants reported "sometimes" or "frequently" disagreeing with the outcomes of cases at AN/I.
• Respondent indicated that "Straightforward" or "Serious vandalism" case types were the ones AN/I handled best. None of the other categories got an approval from more than 10% of the respondents.
• "Interpersonal disputes"/"Conflicts with a certain type of editor"/"Complex conflicts"/"Conflicts with long history" have all been indicated as problematic areas
• Most voted proposals for improvements were " Clerking and moderators (21.82%)"/ "Fairness / Merit-based process" / "More structure in general" / "Separate or ban uninvolved editors / non-admins" / "Punish incivility"
• "Almost half of respondents said that discussions on AN/I are "almost never" or "rarely" focused and neutral. ."
• Conclusions: The instructions, form and process is too unstructured to be effective, reporters need the free time to keep responding, experienced users know how to manipulate the process in their favor, and administrators do not seem to have the time to be involved to investigate.

The discussion linked at the bottom is empty (!!!) [1] There was no follow up.

There have been previous attempts at better user dispute resolution such as the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct which however was removed due to its ineffectiveness without finding a proper substitute:

There is consensus for deprecating the RFC/U process. The community is of the opinion that it no longer serves a useful purpose, that it has a tendency to prolong disputes without helping their resolution, suffers from a lack of participation, attracts biased input, and that it pales in comparison to other processes. There is no consensus for any specific replacement, nor that finding one is required before deprecating RFC/U. Other components of the dispute resolution process should be used, such as ANI and ArbCom. There are some legitimate concerns regarding those alternatives, specifically that ANI isn't well equipped to handle long term issues while at the same time the bar for ArbCom is quite high, meaning a lack of proper venue for handling certain kind of disputes, but they don't justify maintaining a system recognized as inefficient (in those cases too). Suggestions on improving dispute resolution are welcome, though. The RFC/U main pages will be marked historical. There are no currently running RFC/Us, and any unaccounted for uncertified RFC/U should be deleted. Cenarium (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_116#Do_Away_with_RFC/U

Scope

This proposal does NOT refer to content disputes. It is meant to improve the current handling of user behaviour disputes currently handled by AN/I.

This proposal does NOT refer to cases that AN/I already handles well such as straightforward cases of vandalism, urgent matters, sockpuppetry, grave direct personal attacks, etc.

This proposal is meant for all cases that AN/I currently handles poorly such as: complex cases that require a detailed review or "many eyes on the problem", new editor problems, problematic editors, bot problems, SPA, POV, etc.

V1 Proposal Summary

Note
This initial proposal was presented to the Village Pump to start a discussion regarding a possible solution/improvement to this problem. We have collected a lot of feedback in the talk page and in the initial Village Pump thread. We are now working on preparing a complete V2 proposal based on this feedback. Anybody is welcome to join and to leave a comment. Join us!

A fair system to allow any user to report a grievance towards another user with supporting evidence and to propose/request a remedy against that user (§ 1. Report with evidence and sanction request). The report is then reviewed, accepted only if complete (§ 2. Request acceptance) and published with the accused and the accuser both temporarily blocked from editing (§ 3. Request published and temporary block). The accused will be given the right to defend himself (§ 4. Defence). The case is then "locked" and other editors will decide with a direct and clear vote if the accuser's case justifies the sanction proposed (§ 5. Judgement by peers). The case is then closed with an appeal possible through the same process or WP:ARBCOM (§ 6. Closure and appeal).

V1 Proposal Principles and Goals

Basic legal rights must be respected

• right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
• presumption of innocence and right of defence
• principles of legality and proportionality of offences and penalties
• right not to be tried or punished twice in proceedings for the same offence
• However: editing Wikipedia is not a right. It is a privilege and may be revoked through this process (see WP:FREESPEECH)

Additional structure for reports

• Clear reports with a structured form
• Clear accusations with evidence presented at the beginning of the process
• Clear request for sanction/remedy to be confirmed before voting starts and then accepted or rejected by peers

Fairness & due process

• Right of defence for the accused
• Witness testimony allowed (optional)
• Judgment by peers, uninvolved, no conflict of interest, minimum number for large sanctions. Only yes or no votes.
• Wikipedia:NOTCOURT applies: judgment by peers and not bureaucrats means the accused will be judged based on principles and not an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies.
• Case handling by "judge/clerk" that is superpartes, has no conflicts of interest and does not take part in voting etc. but just handles the case from an admin point of view. Power to strike inappropriate comments and maintain order. Power to close cases, tally votes and dismiss inappropriate cases.
• Bilateral edit ban while process is ongoing: both for the accuser and the accused. This ensures full attention. Minimises frivolous case openings and makes it clear that the process is a serious last resort only once all other attempts have failed.
• Depending on sanction requested fixed parameters for quorums and appeal limits apply. Sanctions must be proportionate to the incident within set parameters and must be selected by the accuser accordingly.

Efficiency

• Quick dismissal of reports possible for malformed requests
• No boomerang. The accused or others may "counter sue" with the same process if need be but process must be linear
• Order and structure with no endless discussions. Once the case "has been made" the voting starts and no more information can be provided. Voters may not comment further. Only yes or no.
• Quick case resolution is a goal but there is no overall deadline. Specific parts of the process will have time limits (depending on sanction type) to ensure processes are never "stuck". Fairness of the result is more important than time however.

V1 Proposal overview

1. Report with evidence and sanction request

Requests are opened with a structured form that requests users to input:

1. Name of the accused
2. Accusation with evidence (Wikipedia:DIFF)
3. Sanction requested
4. Witnesses requested (optional, max 5, and may choose not to participate)

2. Request acceptance

The request is picked up by an uninvolved user that will act as the judge/clerk in this dispute. He may not have any significant prior contact with either party.

The clerk will analyse the request and ensure it provides evidence and that it is not incomplete. He may dismiss or accept the report. The report must be evidence based (Wikipedia:DIFF): no reports without supporting evidence will be accepted.

3. Request published and temporary block

The request is accepted and "published". The accuser and the accused are both placed on temporary edit blocks while the process is ongoing.

4. Defence

The accused has a time limit to present his defence. Otherwise the matter will be decided without it.

He may present:

1. Defense with evidence (Wikipedia:DIFF)
2. Witnesses requested (optional, max 5, and may choose not to participate)

Witnesses may participate in this process by providing:

1. Comment with evidence (Wikipedia:DIFF)

Once the defence is received the witnesses (if any) are granted a maximum time to reply. If they don't the process will continue without them. The clerk will strike or reject any contribution not supported by evidence as invalid.

5. Judgement by peers

The case is "locked" by the clerk. No more comments are accepted and any uninvolved user may vote (not witnesses, not users with a conflict of interest, COI may be brought forth by any user, even the accused and the accuser, and the clerk will decide if they are significant enough to disqualify a vote with very little tolerance.).

In some cases a minimum of X votes is required with a X% majority depending on gravity of sanction requested (?). The case will be published for a minimum period depending on severity of the sanction.

Only yes and no votes are accepted to avoid influencing other editors. Only the facts of the case brought forth and an independent review by each judging editor is considered.

The key principle during judgement is to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The accused has the onus of presenting his case and to convince other editors that a sanction is necessary based on evidence (Wikipedia:DIFF).

6. Closure and appeal

The case is closed by the clerk that will evaluate consensus and hand out sanctions. The judgment may be appealed after a minimum period depending on sanction type with a different but similar process (no accused, only a defender).

Every case can be appealed only once. After that, appeal through the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee is possible as a final step in the process.