Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Proposed decision

message: These are written in a way that appears applicable to all editors. Should we amend Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and similar guidelines to show that ArbCom in the appropriate contact for off-wiki threats? Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So our guidelines should be amended to say, "Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately," yes? I just want to make sure that ArbCom intends to take this duty. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about enforcement 2&3

message: This question relates to the proposed enforcements 2 and 3: If such behaviour is observed, is it acceptable to warn the editors involved that they may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration committee, or is this (ironically enough, given the reasons for bringing this case) too likely to be perceived as, or used as, a way to "threaten" people? (ie. "If you don't stop this, I'm going to report you to ArbCom for harassment!" type threats). In other words, when observing behaviour where people may feel obliged to report that behaviour (in this case, possibly inappropriate editing of military computers; in the hypothetical case in future, possible harassment of oneself or others), should the behaviour be reported without warning, or are there still ways to warn and try to de-escalate without making the situation worse? I suspect when things reach such a stage, no amount of warning or de-escalation will help, but some guidance would be appreciated about whether some "warning" stages should now be skipped. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement that problematic behavior, if continued, will be reported to an administrator or the Arbitration Committee, should be acceptable as long is there is a good-faith basis for believing that the behavior to be reported is indeed improper. That is the difference between pursuing internal Wikipedia dispute resolution, which is permitted and encouraged, and pursuing disputes in off-wiki legal or other forums, which is not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there be a difference between an on-wiki "warning" statement to this effect, or a "warning" statement to this effect in an e-mail sent via the "E-mail this user" link? I can see the latter possibly seeming more threatening, but it might also be seen as a way of having a "quiet word". I'm not even going to bother asking what would happen if such a "warning" statement were made over IRC... (though maybe that is relevant too). ie. Is it permissible to pursue Wikipedia dispute resolution via off-wiki methods, such as e-mail and IRC? And are you effectively saying that the ArbCom is prepared to distinguish between frivolous claims of harassment and genuine ones? Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning people about on-wiki conduct 

message: Copying my post from User talk:Newyorkbrad#Bullying? (Commenting here as suggested):
While I have no opinion on the case itself (haven't been following it much), the addition of the word "bullying" attached to "threatening and harassing" seems to be problematic in that it's woefully subjective.
All the user need do is stress their point in a discussion and be accused of "bullying".
Any chance someone could pull out a thesaurus and find a more precise word? : ) - jc37 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed completely; glad you spotted that, and I hope Arbitrators take notice before closing the case.  Since the case was about (putative) threatening and harassing, I don't see the point in including the "bullying", which AFAIK doesn't even have an accepted meaning on WP (e.g., it's not on WP:DR, WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA).  --Jim Butler(talk) 07:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullying