On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 04:25, AntiCompositeNumber <
anticompositenumber(a)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)