Jump to content

Grants:IdeaLab/group or gang action against an editor needs more time-efficient final remedies

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
group or gang action against an editor needs more time-efficient final remedies
We need a faster way to resolve a single dispute against numerous editors when one of the latter apparently invents an accusation and others don't even read the response and the accused editor, even with clear proof, will likely have to spend hours or long days to prepare every step.
idea creator
Nick Levinson
created on19:37, Saturday, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Project idea[edit]

What is the problem you're trying to solve?[edit]

Stopping the ganging-up of editors whose accusations are false or unsubstantiated but whose action prevents editing according to policies and guidelines (other than IAR, which almost no one applies except for special cases) and without having to spend nearly endless time gathering and organizing the evidence, re-editing work on other articles suddenly demolished by editors apparently trying to prevent or punish complaining, and answering new accusations made late in a process.

What is your solution?[edit]

I'm not sure. We need something, but without shortcircuiting due process for all parties. Examples:

  • Hiding content during a dispute so non-admin editors can only take the word of participants should invalidate the complaint (with a few exceptions for illegal content, etc.).
  • Most charges not stated in the dispute initiation should be invalid (exceptions including copyright infringement, child porn presence, and unauthorized reversal of an office edit). If more charges are to be brought, they should have to go to the initial stage for a new dispute.
  • Making charges about an article but not doing so on the article's talk page excludes most editors and should be sanctioned.
  • If a charge is made and answered sufficiently, the original charger should have to show why their charge should still be sustained.
  • Applying TLDR improperly and acting anyway is counterproductive and should disqualify that action or response. If I apply TLDR to something, like if a book is too long to read for a purpose, then I don't participate.
  • Evidence of off-wiki communication that excluded the editor complained of should invalidate the complaint (except for a complaint of unlawful conduct, such as copyright infringement).
  • Editing an editor's unrelated work under suspicious circumstances (such as doing so 13 months later on a ground of lack of consensus because someone says an editor cannot make a consensus despite WP:CON) should be sanctioned.
  • Closing a dispute on a ground not ever mentioned earlier in the dispute effectively prevents participation by the editor complained of.
  • When an editor is banned or blocked for a facially acceptable reason, reversing that without a facially acceptable reason should cause the ban/block to be restored and the unbanner/unblocker sanctioned.

Project goals[edit]

Problems often are the result of several editors talking with each other and essentially ignoring the editor they're complaining about. Dispute resolution procedures that are likely to be fought all the way up require the sole editor to spend hours or whole days gathering evidence that will likely be ignored because the negative judgment has already been collectively made. These steps or something like them should reduce that gang-up effect.

Get involved[edit]



Expand your idea[edit]

Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.

Expand into a Rapid Grant
Expand into a Project Grant
(launching July 1st)

If the Foundation receiving a grant would help with this, I wish you the best. I don't have the time to develop this much, so a grant to me wouldn't help you.