Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

WP:FRIENDLY

I've posted a new essay, Wikipedia:Maintaining a friendly space, which is based off of the WMF IdeaLab's friendly space policy. I would consider it a supplement to this policy. I would in time like to see Wikipedia adopt a friendly space policy resembling this, but for now we have the essay. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Harej (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You fail to include "age" as one of the protected classes. I think the essay is PC drivel, mind you, just wanted to make sure your laundry list is complete since the Friendly Spacers have omitted it from the start. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
... Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the biggest problem with that essay, I think, is... "Harassment includes: Offensive comments related to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, or religion;" for two reasons. 1) It does not and can not objectively define what is and what is not offensive. 2) In no functioning heterogeneous society can there be an effective right not to be offended. Squinge (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You have a point. However, if you comb your hair right and wear a hat, maybe nobody will notice. (You can't objectively prove that that's insulting, and you don't have a right not to be insulted anyway, so we're still the jolliest of colleagues, right? Lets work together on some articles, pinhead!) Herostratus (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Squinge, that page may not give you a black-and-white definition of what behavior will be offensive (which is impossible, because some things that are offensive in one culture are acceptable in others), but it has some virtues, like encouraging people to try to self-educate. Also, it doesn't make any of the stupid mistakes that I've seen in some corporate handbooks. I think that the worst I've seen so far was one that said, "Harassment includes any object related to a disability". (Attention, all people with disabilities: The tools you need to function have just been banned from the workplace. If you wear eyeglasses in the office, you will be guilty of harassing your co-workers by exposing them to "an object related to a disability".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional advice that I would like to see included:
Be slow to take offense. Do not assume that a remark is a slight or an insult where there may be have been no such intent. Even if there was, "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger", and continuing calmly to focus on the issue at hand can keep things on the rails and let constructive discussion proceed.
JohnCD (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with onwiki harassment after ANI fails?

You are harassed on wiki. You report it on ANI. The topic is closed with no action.

What recourse do you have? Are you forced to continue to endure sexual harassment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B007:A90F:F47C:4E5E:7E37:B593 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the ANI thread that was closed with no action? It is hard to answer your question without this context. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to people in that situation in general rather than a specific situation.--2600:100C:B007:A90F:F47C:4E5E:7E37:B593 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide links to two or three examples of the general case you describe? pablo

Inactive project

This talk page has a banner pointing to a project that appears to be inactive. Should we remove the project banner? What should be done about the project? --Boson (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I've split the list of (10) participants into two lots for now, active (4) and inactive (6). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Inactive-ish is OK. It's not marked {{Historical}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexual harassment proposed policy page now exists

This is now a thing.

Wikipedia:Sexual_harassment

Please be bold and edit this a lot. I am in no way saying this should be a final draft, but we should get the ball rolling. --ScWizard (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask why exactly you think it is remotely appropriate to preempt an ongoing RfC? It has been running for less than a day, and it is by no means certain that such a policy will meet community approval. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Heaven forbid editors draft a policy without them being certain it will meet community approval. What a freighting concept! Next they'll be making edits to pages without discussing said edits on the talk page before hand. Who knows where this could lead! --ScWizard (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
From experience (something I appear to have a lot more of than you), scattering discussions of a topic over multiple pages is a sure-fire way of ensuring that nothing ever gets done on Wikipedia. If the topic under discussion needs attention (which it clearly does), it also needs focus. Rushed drafts based on nothing but the first few comments to an RfC that will probably run for weeks aren't remotely helpful. If we are to get proper community involvement in this discussion, we need to give at least a smidgen of an impression that contributors will be listened to, and that they aren't just making up the numbers for a predetermined course. Have the discussion, then create the draft, when it is clear what the community will support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that we should have a sexual harassment policy at all, because sexual harassment is a form of identity-based harassment, and we should be addressing identity-based harassment. While there is sexual harassment on Wikipedia, there is also occasional racial harassment, and there are ugly strains of national harassment in some content areas that have frequent conduct disputes. We should not be singling out one type of identity-based harassment, because all identity-based harassment is hateful. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup - very much my take on the subject. The issue is personal harassment, and we need appropriate methods to deal with it, regardless of the form it takes. It is both unnecessary and divisive to focus on one form over another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Some problematic language (e.g., personal sexual beliefs could refer to pedophilia). I'm more in favor of a general non-discrimination policy that includes sexual discrimination. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Echoing EvergreenFir, the current wording will be wikilawyered by people seeking to breach WP:CHILDPRO. Also, mildly, its already possible to report issues privately to admins via email, or to Arbcom or the WMF. I haven't made changes to the draft page because like Andy the Grump I think it's better we keep this issue in one place, and this page WP:HARASS seems more central. I should add, thanks for taking the time to do the essay, even if I disagree with the location and some of the words. It's a worthwhile discussion to be having. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe for this draft there can be a sentence such as "no this does not mean child porn is cool. Don't try to play dumb just because you want to sexually harass people." Such a thing should not be necessary but then again this entire policy proposal is to keep smart people from playing dumb. That's how I see it. Popish Plot (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the discrimination against the disabled I have encountered on wikipedia I would agree with Fir here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of both justice and "optics", I think we ought to come up with a decent draft of a sexual harassment policy, then --- if it is true, or if we make it true --- put a note on the page saying that it is not a separate policy because it is incorporated in (link to policy page). That way we don't proliferate policy pages, and don't necessarily single out sexual harassment for anything too drastically different from existing policy, but we also make it clear that this isn't because it's OK to do. Wnt (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Would it be simplest for Wikipedia:Sexual harassment policy and Wikipedia:Sexual harassment to redirect to a new improved Wikipedia:Harassment? --Boson (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
+1. Surely the problem is that WP:HARASS is not fit for purpose? GoldenRing (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The former looks like one of those little dribbles we accumulate that only make it harder to find anything. The latter is a draft that might become a standalone policy, more likely will become an essay explaining other policy, and perhaps could be merged into WP:Harassment after people decide what they want. So I think it's OK to nip the first one now, but give the other one a chance to twist in the wind a while and we'll see what people come up with. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with harassment

I note the linked Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment essay links external resources to help a user cope with harassment, but it gives no advice on what action to take in order to get help from the Wikipedia community. This policy says the user should file a report at WP:ANI.

I have seen several complaints at ANI brushed off with the excuse, "this is a content dispute". There is now an essay at Wikipedia:This is not a content dispute. I hope this may help users get help with policy enforcement when they need it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this and have added my own experience to WP:NOTCONTENT. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked -> Sanctioned

I've made a bold change, but wanted to start a discussion about it here as well, to see if there are any unintended consequences. My change is to User space harassment:

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked***sanctioned*** as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

There are already some cases where an editor has not been blocked but nonetheless has this type of notice posted on their user or user talk page - usually as a result of arbitration. Are there cases where a user has been sanctioned, but not blocked, where we'd consider posting this sort of notice unwarranted harassment? GoldenRing (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The change doesn't make any sense. The "unless the account has been blocked" text is a reference to WP:REMOVED. Certain block-related notices cannot be removed and thus have something of the effect of a "wall of shame" while the block lasts. This isn't true of other "sanction" notices, which may be removed by the user (doing so indicates that they've been read and acknowledged).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think that is quite true. Certainly routine warnings from other editors can be removed, but I believe that there are some editors who actually are required to keep specific statements or links on their pages, e.g., as a result of an ArbCom case. If you are required (e.g.) to write and post a statement that you have a conflict of interest on your user page, then that is a case of the page being used "to display supposed problems with the user", and if it happens as a result of ArbCom or community discussion, then it is the result of sanctions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing: That could be the case, but this page doesn't need to go into an explication of what users may or may not delete from their user pages; that's what WP:USERPAGE is for. And ArbCom can just make up what it wants to whenever, so there really is no way to account for it anyway. The change in wording to the policy was directly misleadings. If it's felt that the long-standing wording is also misleading then we need to draft a non-misleading version, not swap one error for another. Required disclosure of a COI, however, isn't "display [of] supposed problems with the user"; it's a requirement everyone has to abide by, per WP:COI, at WP:DISCLOSE and at WP:PAYDISCLOSE & WP:DECLARECOI more pointedly and particularly, that ArbCom or the community can enforce. So, that kind example doesn't seem to qualify. Was there some other kind, and is it something we actually need to address here? If it's an odd-ball case, there is no need to address it here. ArbCom and the community can impose an editor-specific requirement, and that will be by its nature immune to gaming by resorting to the wording on this page (or any other policypage), no matter what it says. WP:USERPAGE could even be changed to say that all user notices/warnings and such can be removed with impunity, and ArbCom or ANI can still override that with something specific that says "notwithstanding WP:USERPAGE ...". It's WP:CREEP to try to pre-emptively account for every imaginable scenario, and WP:HARASSMENT isn't the venue to attempt that. :-) Sorry if some of that is repetitive. Must have coffee...  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Sure, we don't have to go into long explications. But we also don't have to get it factually wrong in an effort to oversimplify. For example, we don't have to say that anything requires a particular COI disclosure on the userpage, because nothing does (you can disclose in other ways, and not all COIs are about money). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Are you mistaking warnings for sanctions? Of course warnings can be added and removed at will - that's not what we're talking about. In fact, that's covered separately at WP:HARASS. I'm talking about notices related to actual sanctions - eg where a sanction includes a requirement for a notice to be placed on a user's page or talk page. It's no good saying, If it's an odd-ball case, there is no need to address it here. ArbCom and the community can impose an editor-specific requirement, and that will be by its nature immune to gaming by resorting to the wording on this page (or any other policypage), no matter what it says. That is simply not true. Arbcom is explicitly bound by policy and can't change policy. And any discussion regarding community-imposed sanctions will inevitably end with someone saying, "We can't do that; it says so in the policy." Is there some problem with allowing notices related to arbcom- or community-imposed sanctions to be posted on user pages? GoldenRing (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • That's my guess. A warning is not a notice of sanctions, but since actual sanctions are fairly rare, and sanctions requiring display of a note even rarer, then he might have forgotten about them and assumed that warnings were intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How is harassment measured, and by whom?

If this is already defined, please just give me a link. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Academic literature (2006), sample book, sample videos, sample national research project, sample policy, sample training. --Djembayz (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the question is intended to be interpreted as "How is harassment measured on Wikipedia, and by whom?"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with SMcCandlish, that's how I read it was well. While those sources linked by Djembayz define workplace harassment, it will have to be different. What construes harassment in an online community with the possibility of users being anonymous, the inability to physically come in contact or display bodily emotions towards others, the certain freedoms of speech within the constraints of respect and civility, along with other fundamental differences will make the "definition" different. When the principles or how something is defined at one place are transferred to an entirely different enviroment, they don't necessarily align, fit, or work there.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Agreed. We also have the complication that some forms of harassment and discrimination (which are not synonyms at all, as I get into elsewhere on this page) that are trivially easy to call out in, say, the workplace, are very difficult to define as such here. If I'm in a meeting at work, I'll probably be fired if I say "Alice, you can't just insert that view in this meeting; it represents a pointedly politicized feminist perspective. And Bob, yours must be excluded because it's advancing Roman Catholic dogma as if it were fact." Substitute in article for meeting and you have good WP arguments against POV pushing, not "harassment" or "discrimination". In the work meeting context, it indicates I'm excluding people's views based on my own subjective view that their subjective ones should be denigrated. On WP, it's an objection to the editing in of unattributed subjective POVs at all; I might even agree with both Alice's and Bob's views [or, rather, those of the sources they are hopefully citing], and still make precisely the same observations!

        We have to either find a way to come up with a complicated system for distinguishing this kind of in-WP-context valid statement from "Alice, you're a stupid feminazi" and "Bob, screw your Christian bullshit", or admit that we're going to instead have to lay out general principles and apply them case-by-case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

        • These are typical workplace discussions in editorial settings, such as a newsroom ... perhaps we need more people with editorial and journalistic experience participating in setting up our organizational structures and processes. --Djembayz (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been a member of my Parish Council, a local government body, for many years. I sit on a few other committees too. Harassment is not allowed. But there is no special definition or measure of it, it is just one of those words where everybody knows what it means: look it up in a dictionary. The nearest we get is the idea that if a person feels that they are being harassed then somebody has acted inadvisedly. We then have to look at the individual situation to see whether the "aggressor" was being malicious or just ignorant or thoughtless, or possibly merely misunderstood. That is, we assess the degree of harassment in common language and through mutual discussion, we do not measure it according to some defined yardstick. Once you define a thing, people will game it. I have even known cases where the accusation of harassment was being used to harass the alleged aggressor - try writing that into a practicable yardstick! There are things which should not be defined in policy, and this is one of them. What policy does need to do is to describe the process of dealing with claims. If the process is broken, then the process needs reviewing, not the definition. For example I believe that ANI is not good at making decisions, but that cannot be addressed directly here. FYI the only general principle that can be easily stated and applied is that if a person genuinely feels harassed then they have been. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
We have a multicultural community. There will be a large amount of overlap in understanding of the concept and specific details of harassment, but there will also be significant differences. These differences will be magnified and aggravated by differences in comprehension and skill in the use of (in en:) English and its assortment of dialects. Some people are more easily offended than others, and some people appear to be unaware that they are being offensive. In some of those cases they may actually not intend any offense, and in their native environment in some of those cases they may not actually be giving offense. At the risk of someone being unintentionally offended, I for example might not wish to be judged by American standards. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with almost everything in Steelpillow's comment above, except for the final statement. In my opinion a person can genuinely feel harassed without anyone actively harassing them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a difficult issue. I used to think so too. But I have since learned through experience that in practice, due in part to the cultural differences you mention, one must aim to deal with feelings of harassment. As you say, a person can feel genuinely harassed without any intent on anybody else's part to do so. But in what way is harassment to be identified save by the feelings of the victim? Even where there is no malicious perpetrator, one must still deal with those feelings. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
As a community, WP does need to deal with them; this is at the heart of the WP:GENDERGAP. But it's not a "punish this person for how that other one feels" policy matter. We have to unquestionably distinguish between subjective feelings of harassment, and objectively observable behavior patterns that the community, though policy, is certain are harassment and impermissible. If we don't, the WP:GAMING of the system will be constant and destructive. Harassing others with accusations of harassment is no less a form of harassment (whether it's "as bad" according to some subjective pseudo-analysis is irrelevant).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding emotions, a journalism outlet has set up groups for emotional and practical support for harassed colleagues.
  • One aspect of "objectively observable behavior" and the effect of ongoing accusations of harassment is described in an article about how "rudeness is contagious". It states, "People who encounter rude behavior from co-workers are more likely to act rudely in later interactions ... Mistreated people are also more likely to feel as if others are treating them rudely, to which they respond with more rudeness, passing on negative emotions ..."
  • A few questions this article raises: What impact is vandal-fighting having on volunteers? Does vandal-fighting desensitize volunteers, and make it easier to be mean? Could expanding the role of paid staff in vandal-fighting help protect our volunteers from harassment by vandals, and possibly make for more agreeable colleagues? --Djembayz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is focused too much on "punish this person". How about we try focusing on what we can do to "support the other person"? Most of the time, what's needed is not some admin hitting the block button. What's mostly needed is someone using meatball:DefendEachOther techniques: I post something nasty to Steelpillow, and not only can Steelpillow object, but when editors like SMcCandlish or Peter see it, they should speak up, too. It's not that hard to say, "Hey, it's not okay to treat people like that, even if you're having a bad day. Try revising your remarks to be obviously CIVIL. It won't take long to clean it up." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it is better to try to avoid directly criticizing people as that tends to polarize the situation even more. "Play the ball, not the man". Point out what was offensive, and why, not who was offensive and what you think their motivation may have been. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If editors would do that more often (that = publicly label sexist/racist/etc. remarks as actually being those things, instead of claiming that their targets should not be upset), then that would be a major improvement. I'd like to see editors go slightly further, though, and express actual disapproval, rather than merely observing a fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Added content to the Harassment and disruption section.

There are many concerns over language with specifics including the current "sexual harassment" so I boldly added language to reflect those concerns. Otr500 (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to nutshell

Currently the nutshell content presents: "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts"

I propose changing "wanted" to "warranted" with the result that the text would read: "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwarranted contacts". Problematic editors will need to be contacted whether they want it or not. GregKaye 15:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree and support clarification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't agree. There's a difference between unwanted contacts (e.g., the user says 'User:Example, please don't email me/post on my talk page') and unwarranted contacts (because it would be the sender deciding whether or not it is warranted). There are other options when there is a reason to express concern about the action of an editor that do not involve directly contacting someone who has asked not be contacted by a specific user. It is the receiver who feels harassed, not the sender, and this policy, including its nutshell, should be written from that point of view. I cannot count the number of times when senders have lacked sufficient self-awareness to understand that their actions have reached the level of harassment. Risker (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree that some "senders have lacked sufficient self-awareness". But you seem to be arguing for a word which is purely subjective, rather than one which can be judged on a "reasonable person" basis. With the wording as it stands, messages from the Arbitration Committee constitute harassment to their victims, as they are both annoying and unwanted. "Unwarranted" is certainly an improvement, but I think we can do better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Harassment is commonly explained (for example, in the UK) as, "repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person." See [1]. This definition doesn't prevent appropriate warnings being given to editors whose conduct may lead to them being blocked. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm yes it does. Warnings and blocks can be very distressing, and are certainly unwanted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
No, because appropriate warnings are not repeated unnecessarily, and are intended to help the recipient. The definition of harassment hinges on what a "reasonable person" would find alarming or distressing, not the sender or the recipient. I consider myself a reasonable person, and if I am unintentionally and consistently breaching policy, I would want to be told about it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC); appended 09:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
They are not repeated unnecessarily, hence they are not unwarranted. But they are both repeated and unwanted. Funnily enough I have been discussing anti-bullying and anti-harrassment policy in the context of a school I am involved with, and the word "repeated" is not salient. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC).
Sorry I didn't clarify my point very well. I agree an unwarranted warning is a personal attack, whether repeated or not. In any case, it is not harassment to "pursue a course of conduct" that is reasonable for the circumstances. I'm not saying the policy wording has no room for improvement, I'm just not convinced this is one of them. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that "unwarranted contact" should be prohibited. The sort of message along the lines of, "There's something happening [here], you may want to take a look" is unwarranted contact, but I doubt anyone would call that harassment unless it persists after the user has made it clear the communication is unwanted.
Warning troublesome users when necessary is explicitly permitted in WP:HA#NOT. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
A thing that is expressly permitted is not unwarranted. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. If the intent is for the nutshell to permit "warranted warnings", then prohibiting "unwarranted contact" prohibits more than intended. Users need to read the policy to find that detail. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I confess I do not follow this logic. There is a profound difference between unwarranted (unjustifiable) and unsolicited (not asked for). A "take a look here" message may be unsolicited but fully warranted by policy and circumstance. Prohibiting unwarranted, i.e. unjustifiable, contact does not prevent unasked-for contact if it is justifiable. So really, I do not see this as a problem with the nutshell. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The OED defines unwarranted as not justified or authorized, but there is nothing in the harassment policy to say we need justification or permission for making contact with another user, nor would I support such an addition. To give a stronger counterexample, WP:UP#GOALS disallows "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia." That is unambiguously unwarranted by policy, but it isn't harassment. Perhaps a word like "unreasonable" may be more appropriate? Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC) ; edited 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, do you mean that a contact can be unwarranted for other reasons besides harassment? As I read it the proposed nutshell is implying that it is the repeated contact (over something unjustified) which constitutes harassment. If I do read it aright, then I don't think your criticism applies: the key is that the repetition is inappropriate, not that the content itself necessarily is. A comment can be unwarranted simply because it has been said clearly enough already. Also, I'd suggest that "unreasonable" opens the possibility even more of wrangling over whether it refers to the act or the content (as, perhaps ironically, we seem to be): one can unreasonably send or repeat a message whose content is otherwise perfectly reasonable. Does that make sense? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm following you. I'm happy to answer the points you raise.
do you mean that a contact can be unwarranted for other reasons besides harassment?
Not just that, I'm saying "unwarranted contact" and harassment are intersecting sets, so one term isn't a good description of the other. I believe some perfectly normal, policy abiding, mutually appreciated contact could technically be said not to have any policy "justification". We discussed the example of a "take a look here" message. Is there any policy which specifically says that is allowed? The way I read the proposed wording, it implies a fundamental change, from contact with other users being permitted by default, to being prohibited by default. I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think that is the intention of the proposal.
If I do read it aright, then I don't think your criticism applies
Clearly there are other ways of reading it too, and your interpretation above also seems consistent with the wording. The question is whether the proposal clarifies the nutshell or confuses it.
A comment can be unwarranted simply because it has been said clearly enough already.
Absolutely, although WP:GOODFAITH misunderstandings can occur in any discussion between reasonable people. I don't think that every case of "not getting it" rises to the level of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, or repeatedly annoying people.
Also, I'd suggest that "unreasonable" opens the possibility even more of wrangling
I agree it probably doesn't help. I was just trying to think of a compromise that uses language a little more consistent with the Crown Prosecution Service guidance I linked above. My initial reaction was that moving away from this established phrasing could have unforeseen consequences, and my own view on that hasn't changed. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The nutshell is ungrammatical as it stands: in the list of "threats, repeated and annoying/unwarranted contacts" the word "repeated" is not a noun. I think it means to say; "threats or repeated and annoying/unwarranted contacts." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Good catch. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it is correct. The partial quote above only mentions the first part of the nutshell. The "or" is at the end of the list. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Core conduct policies information page

Exploring possibilities usually starts at a relevant talk page before seeking a WP:RFC. All comments are welcomed and needed.

We have the WP:Five pillars, fundamental principles, three Core content policies that states " Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.", and four main WP:CONDUCT (behavioral) policies that are important for an online community to exist together. Assuming good faith is a behavioral guideline (one would think this would be a policy?) and could be included per below.
  1. WP:CIVILITY
  2. WP:No personal attacks
  3. WP:Harassment
  4. Wikipedia:Non discrimination policy
For the most part these compliment each other and it would seem a good idea to make them part of a group of a WP:Core conduct policies or Core behavioral conduct policies. The second would leave room in case AGF was ever elevated to policy. I also suspect, if accepted, that the name could be WP:Core behavioral policies and guidelines and include AGF.
If there is a case of harassment that would, at this time, be a subsequent (second or more) violation it would already be a violation of Civility and no personal attacks. A civility violation, considered incivility has content providing for a block "Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.". Extreme verbal abuse or profanity does actually give ammunition to an admin to block on a single instance but there would need to be community support for such action.
It would just seem natural that these be grouped together on an information page, that would make using them together or referencing them easier, so I thought I would explore this. Otr500 (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
How would this help? Every extra sentence makes a policy less clear, and every extra page makes it harder to find important information. The policies do not need extra text, and any problem with them is due to disagreements about enforcement in the community. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree that every extra sentence makes a policy less clear. Policies become less clear when the sentences in them are confusingly written or poorly chosen. The number of sentences is irrelevant. (Same for encyclopedia articles: a long Featured article is not automatically more confusing than a stub.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Otherwise we'd just revert all policies back to their original formulation. They grow over time because they need to. When editors notice that they've become palimpsestuous and need some copyediting, then we copyedit them. It's just how it works.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I hoped it was obvious that I was referring to redundant extra sentences. Once CIVIL and NPA and HARASS have finished outlining the situation, they should stop—describing all the ways of being uncivil misses the point of Wikipedia. In particular, the proposal above is to create an extra page which would either duplicate existing policies or disagree with them—neither would be useful. No extra navigation is needed because WP:5P points to WP:CIVIL which has {{conduct policy list}} prominently at the top. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • How would it help?:
  1. the policies are related
  2. it is not "adding" to the policies
  3. it would place them (actually 3 because Non discrimination is not conduct) in one place together for clarity
  4. placing them on an "information page",that includes all of them, can not possibly add to confusion. Many times "harassment", as being bothered, is actually a personal attack.
  5. tie them together so that if one editor "attacks" another it is easy to see that incivility can be a "personal attack", and if a second time "harassment", at the same time.
  6. These are included within the civility policy anyway with a short mention so why not show the importance of having "core policies".
  7. As with core content policies, they "complement each other".
Enforcement has been an ongoing problem and I have seen it discussed for several years with stagnant results. Attempts to strengthen the individual policies and guidelines will be an attempt to also enhance enforcement possibilities.
Either we have an enforcement problem or we don't. Many feel that we do and thus far it has not been rectified.
One solution, that even has support from Jimbo, is to have yet another "specific policy" on sexual harassment. I can not see how an extra policy would be beneficial over trying to fix what we have. We do need to "fix" certain areas to sway disagreements and hopefully foster a willingness to use enforcement, to at least include the possibility of a 24 hour block, that will show Wikipedia is really moving towards a user friendly place and bridge any gender gap.
We can "do nothing", maybe create more useless policies, that actually tries to prove that Wikipedia holds a position that one certain area is more or less important than another one, all the while making it "appear" that we are doing something, or we can try to do something and seek results. If just "making appear" is a goal Wikipedia has done a good job thus far. A goal of no sexual harassment is important but so is a goal of not allowing bullying, and I feel equally important as does any recipient of such actions. If we protect the offender, we have not helped Wikipedia. I made comments in the "Question for those opposing" section that included seeking enforcement and included in the comments that was all that was repeated was "templates". Adding more policies without enforcement and certainly more templates by themselves, will not fix anything. Otr500 (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You can also view fixing the sexual harassment piece as a step toward fixing bullying, because eliminating sexual harassment as an option gives bullies one less way to push people around. Eliminating sexual harassment also makes it more likely that gay people and women will be in a position to start pushing back against bullies, instead of remaining silent or running away. Sometimes, with intractable problems, it's like the cat with the ball of string. It doesn't matter where you start untying the knot, you just fix one small piece and then another and another, until the situation starts to clarify itself.
The value of discussing sexual harassment policy may not be so much in coming up with a new and improved policy, or with hammering out the optimum language to achieve results. The value of discussing a sexual harassment policy may lie in getting the community to re-evaluate its existing consensus regarding sexual harassment. From my perspective, there is an extra effort needed to deal with sexual harassment, and probably different techniques required. From the perspective of people with long standing involvement in site enforcement, if they think its covered by bullying and they're able to add some sort of confidential reporting channel for enforcement, fine with me. The way the site is set up, it's difficult to enforce against consensus. At this point, it appears that there is no consensus to enforce on sexual harassment. If consensus here that rough-and-tumble interactions with sexual content are just the way our bonding process works, it's a consensus that impedes the participation of women as a group. If the community proves totally unwilling to budge on this issue (as I believe it will), and continues its consensus that rough-and-tumble interactions with sexual content are non-enforceable behavior, this brings us to a conclusion regarding what can be handled by the community itself through consensus, and what needs to be dealt with by WMF enforcing terms of use.
Core conduct page sounds like a way to organize the material so people could find it-- could even lead to the idea of adopting a code of conduct, and be one more piece of untying the knot.
Core conduct could be a way to put the WMF terms of use directly into the mix.
Clicking "accept" of a core conduct code when opening an account, or editing from an IP, could re-emphasize specific behaviors required for users.
Since we have some momentum going at the moment, are there perhaps any additional templates that you might suggest for the average user who would like to push back against bullying, sexual harassment, or other unwelcoming behaviors? Templates will only help if they empower the average user to start participating in enforcement efforts and strenghtening them. Tracking user-applied templates would be a way to alert administrators to the need for the 24-hour blocks you suggest. (Perhaps the template discussion, with your prior remarks on templates, needs to move to its own section). --Djembayz (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
(Added upon re-reading comments of initial poster): One reason for breaking out a separate policy on sexual harassment is that it enables you to establish a confidential reporting channel to resolve these cases. (My initial reading of the literature suggests that confidentiality is a key component due to stigma associated with sexual matters; this seems to be consistent with what the Wikimania presenters found.) --Djembayz (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I support the general idea of making the policies on civility, personal attacks, and harassment part of a coordinated whole, in the process making all of them shorter and clearer and removing some of the confusing and redundant overlap. The proposed information page might be one way of providing that coordination. It may be most important to those editing the other policies, so that the same stuff does not get unnecessarily repeated. So I would support such an essay or guideline page (or perhaps 2 pages) if and only if it were used to drastically reduce the size of the existing policies and remove redundancies. The talk page might also be a place where the necessary reconciliation and compromise between the various factions can take place. We should spend more effort on defining concise policies that all reasonable people can agree on, because they do justice to all sides and take proper account of differing views, traditions, and interaction styles. --Boson (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines should be as long as necessary to explain the community's view on the subject–and neither any longer nor any shorter than that. We have both very long (WP:NOT) and very short (WP:IAR) policies, and both the long ones and the short ones are suitable to their subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with most of that, except "both the long ones and the short ones are suitable to their subjects", if the implication is that no policy texts would profit from being made more concise. In my opinion, some have become too cluttered and, for instance, mix policy with things that do not belong there. I think policies would be easier to enforce if they complied with policy-content policy and restricted themselves more to making it clear what type of conduct violates policy. This is the sort of discussion that could be held on the talk page of the proposed project page, because it means thinking about what should be stated on which policy page and how to reduce redundancy and overlap. Whoever compiled the policy content policy thought about this problem.--Boson (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You undermine your reasonable statements, e.g. "policy texts would profit from being made more concise", with extremist hyperbole like "I would support [this] if and only if it were used to drastically reduce the size of the existing policies". I actually agree that some reduction of redundancy and blather is in order here, but it won't be by a move to "drastically reduce" any of these pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem I see is that the proposed page would probably duplicate a lot of what the existing policies contain. So, without the new page, the existing pages would probably not need to be drastically reduced in size. However, if – as I suggested – the explanatory text, for instance, is all moved to a more appropriate place, most of it should be removed from the pages where it previously was. So the drastic reduction is to counterbalance a drastic increase elsewhere. That is the nature of a move. I should probably have been clearer about my reasoning, but I stand by my statement, that I would support such a new page only if the other pages are reduced in size by a "similar" amount (this would be a very substantial reduction). So my "if and only if" and "drastically" were dispassionate, not emotional or transactional , as they might have come across: I would not support a new page that merely duplicated information redundantly, but I probably would support a new page that put the duplicated information in one place, allowing a considerable reduction in redundant information.
I think the point you are addressing is the pruning that is necessary independently of any move of information from one place to another. Without the partial move, I agree that this would probably not end up being "drastic", though I believe it should be approached with a "rigorous pruning" frame of mind to counter the natural tendency for the collaborative editing environment to produce bloat over time. I say this, having experienced the amount of effort it took to remove a small amount of the advice (about not addressing other editors in the second person) at WP:AVOIDYOU, part WP:NPA, which is supposed to explain to editors and admins what amounts to constitutes a personal attack. I would, personally, suggest removing all the advice about avoiding "you".
--Boson (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Everyone; Please look at Wikipedia:Core content policies. This is along the lines of what I am suggesting and not just "moving" pages or information. Will this limit redundancy? I would think so because something mentioned in one, pertinent in the other, can be explained once. I do think that centralizing as Core conduct policies will make it clear that the policies are more closely related. A personal attack is most certainly incivility and a second instance would be harassment.
@Djembayz; I do not want anyone thinking or assuming, in anyway, that I do not think sexual harassment, sexual bullying, or sexual attacks of any form against any person is not atrocious. Personally I think there are words that, if used against any editor, no matter the circumstances or the community standing of the offender, should result in a block or ban. That is just me and my thoughts that atrocious actions should never be tolerated. Anything less than that is a compromise to try to find a balance, that will protect "all" editors from malicious harmful actions and make Wikipedia a "friendly" place.
I also think that a "confidential reporting channel" should be considered. I do not think that a "specific" policy is needed as an only vehicle to provide such a channel. We have a guideline on bullying and I support a guideline on sexual harassment. I just want to make it clear that I hold the position that all forms of egregious personal attacks are hurtful to individuals and should be considered detrimental to Wikipedia.
  • We should be careful of the slippery slope of labeling one type of malicious attack more serious than another equally injurious type.
@ Boson; It is hard to garner support for difficult policies stipulating that they be as correct as possible but drastically reduced in size. A problem is that there are concerns and problems. There is a gender gap problem, there is an enforcement problem, and there has evolved a system that actually protects some editors at the expense of harming others and damaging Wikipedia.
Extreme vagueness is how successful wikilawyering is fostered. Redundancy, when not constructive, does not help but sometimes repetitive wording under different contexts are needed for clarification. Reduce what we can and improve what we can. The WP:Non discrimination policy extends to "all projects" so acknowledging them is a good thing and a core conduct page would be a great place. This would certainly "put the duplicated information in one place" thus allowing some clean up.
A major problem in the past (as far back as I looked) is that it seems improvements get bogged down and just waxes cold over time. The result is that we still have the same problems. I see projects covering things from A to Z, so why not concerning this? There is no point in attempting any of this, "except the putting on of the show", without some look at enforcement. I followed some of a Wikipedia incident involving the use of what has been labeled the C-word (What is the most offensive word in English?) and was appalled. Some might argue that this is subjective because in England the word is not supposedly considered that bad. I can not imagine that we should not have some egregious actions, and words, that should never be allowed on Wikipedia involving a personal attack. Surely that can not be too objectionable? It is "not the word" but the actions that might include certain words. Otr500 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at WP:Core content policies and, on reflection, would support something similar for conduct, but without the history section, i.e. a very concise summary of the actual polices and how they relate. I had imagined your proposal would result in something longer. I don't think that by itself would really reduce redundancy but it is nevertheless useful, because it shows how the policies are related. What I was suggesting was that, if we have a single page outlining how the policies are related, it would also be possible, either at that page – or, perhaps, preferably at a separate page, something like Wikipedia:Core conduct guideline – to include most of the details on how to interpret and distinguish the different policies, enabling the policies themeslves to be more in the nature of "Thou shalt not steal" as opposed to the old version of the European Honey Directive (which you can read [2]). For instance, read the section WP:AVOIDYOU at Wikipedia:No personal attacks (the shortcut is misleading), and then read the section Wikipedia:Civility #No personal attacks or harassment at Wikipedia:Civility. I would suggest that such explanations would be better off moved elsewhere (and pruned a bit in the process). In a separate guideline it would be much easier to explain (non-redundantly) where incivility becomes a personal attack, where a personal attack is aggravated by identity-based discrimination, and where personal attacks become harassment. I shall return to some other points later.--Boson (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Reactions to harassment

I see that there is some disagreement about the content of this section. I'd propose a new version:

It is hard to remain calm and to react correctly in the face of real or perceived harassment. It is important that any allegations of misconduct about someone who is being harassed be considered in this context. Suffering real or perceived harassment does not justify an editor's misconduct, but a more cautious approach to sanctions in such situations is preferred.

I don't think it's necessary to pick apart why it's hard (irritable, lose trust etc). And it's not immediately clear to me what the old language, not always sufficient to mitigate misconduct, is trying to say. Does it mean that sometimes harassment might justify misconduct? Or only that it makes the misconduct more understandable and merits lesser sanctions? I think my revision spells it out - harassment never justifies misconduct, but might be a factor in favor of lenient sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed, with one tweak (see end of post). There's already misconduct happening by people who don't even perceive harassment against them, but an "environment" or "culture" of harassment against others (e.g. transgendered people), and it needs to stop. (I quote some of these personal attacks in my !vote on the sexual harassment policy proposal above, but these are just what I came up with in a couple of minutes; there have been many others, and I've been subjected to nasty verbal attacks myself for "daring" to XfD a page that had "woman" or "women" in the title, regardless of the rationale for the delete/merge proposal, etc. "I feel harassed" and "I feel someone is being harassed" is not some magical license to be an asshat to other editors, to disrupt discussions or processes, to engage in canvassing or meatpuppetry, etc. I do agree that sanctions should be commensurate with the fact that it takes some editors a while to absorb WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:CIVIL, etc., but disruptive editing behavior on the basis of perceived harassment or an environment of it still has to be curtailed, and certainly must not be incidentally encouraged. (I don't even think that hypocritical behaviors, e.g. verbally attacking male or cisgendered editors for being male or cis, when trying to make a point about harassment of women or TG people, need to be addressed harshly, just addressed.)

    That said, I disagree with the wording "react correctly"; something like "react constructively" would be more useful, and less likely to come off as thought-policing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I support something along these lines, although the exact wording might require some work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've made the change, with User:SMcCandlish's suggested tweak. Let's see what happens. GoldenRing (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support so far.Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of edit expanding prohibition beyond listed reasons

@Smallbones:; Your reversion of this edit implies that there are acceptable grounds for harassment. Would you please explain what these are, or alternatively, why the deleted edit is too broad and dilutes the effect, or where in the policy all other forms of harassment are explicitly forbidden? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the section above Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Bold_change_was_made where this sentence is being discussed. We certainly need to discuss the recently added sentence. My feeling is that this sentence underlines the importance of stopping identity-based harassment, but your addition of "or any other reason" nullifies that emphasis - the sentence becomes a big marshmallow, sweet and airy with no nutritional value. But please discuss *above* where others are discussing it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, No problem. Will move to above discussion as suggested.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Real or assumed/alleged

CorporateM keeps addding "Harassment of an editor on the basis of a real or assumed" or "real or alleged" race, etc. This doesn't really make sense as written. I assume what's meant is "actual or perceived," but I can't see a need for it. Sarah (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the word intended was probably 'presumed'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It's poor writing: a real race, a real sex, etc. We could add something like "whether or not the attribute has been correctly identified," but it isn't needed. If someone uses a racial slur, it doesn't matter what race the target is. The slur is the issue. Sarah (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Without implying support for inclusion of this sentence, it is clear that it is better in the form that SarahSV has provided. I would also suggest that "sex" is superfluous here. Any such harassment is on the based of (actual or perceived) presented gender, and is covered by that term. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I support Sarah's version which, at 22:44, 18 August 2015, reads "Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability is not allowed." Some comments at Jimbo's talk appear to have led to an attempt to fix the clumsy "alleged" which was apparently in the text. However, Sarah's rewrite is much cleaner. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I should start looking at editors profiles. I support "Sarah's" version also. I have also noted a very long discussion on Jimbo's talk page concerning this subject. I was going to reply there but that is a users talk page and I did not see that he was in on the discussion. I intend to make comments, especially since some of the content is particularly relevant here so I will either ask that the discussion be brought here or I will copy certain parts here to reply and comment on. I really dislike all the splintering that is going on. Otr500 (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additions to first body section

I'd like to add a few words to the sentence "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project. Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability is not allowed."

I noticed that gender identity was removed by SlimVirgin on 18 August, presumably with the rationale that it is part of gender, which makes sense to everyone except the people who might discriminate on that basis. I propose to add it back in so that everyone understands.

I also propose to add creed after religion, as is often done in the U.S. We often have problems with people claiming that certain religions are not religions - "real" Muslims discriminating against Ahmadiyya, and that sort of thing. This language makes that harder to justify in the minds of those who might be so-inclined.

Ethnicity and national identity should be non-controversial additions, given that Eastern European politics are the root of some of the most vile behavior on Wikipedia. It should be national identity, not nationality, for obvious reasons. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally like to keep it as simple as possible. Describing every detail of what's prohibited sometimes weakens the overall prohibition as people focus on the details rather than the big picture. In that sense, I think "sex, gender, sexual orientation" covers "gender identity". "Ethnicity and national identity" might be more or less covered by "race" in some places, but is more problematic. Having lived in eastern Europe, I have noticed that what they usually mean by "nationality" is what Americans mean by "ethnicity." I guess "national identity" might mean something to Basques or Kurds that "nationality" or "citizenship" doesn't mean to Americans. I wouldn't be against adding one word here, perhaps "ethnicity" would do it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe gender should be changed to gender identity, since the sex-gender distinction is lost on most people. Race is not the same as those other two things. And I do think it's important to protect beliefs beyond what some people consider to be religious beliefs (actually, the draft WP:Identity-based harassment explicitly names irreligion as protected) hence the need for creed here. I disagree that brevity is the most important thing in this passage. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - suggest removal of the list aspect of this sentence; replacing with a simple mention of identity-based harassment & a wikilink to that policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not a policy yet. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sammy1339, Many thanks. I see that that page, having been at various stages a policy, an essay, a supplement, is currently a proposed policy. On that basis, I think you are correct that it would be inappropriate to link to it unless it becomes policy.
In which case, suggest removal of the list aspect of the sentence; replacing with a simple mention of identity-based harassment, within a wider context that all harassment is prohibited. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that the meaning of the phrase "identity-based harassment" might not be understood by people who didn't already know the context of this conversation. It sounds like saying you can't discriminate based on who people are, or maybe you can't harass someone you know in real life, or maybe you can't harass someone by threatening to reveal his identity. It's better to be explicit. The point is to make clear to certain people what they are not allowed to do, and the contents of this sentence really shouldn't be controversial. It' the sort of thing that those who don't have a reason to care can easily skim over. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sammy1339, On reflection, I am inclined to agree with you. While some us may be intimate with the term, it is reasonable to consider that a significant proportion of editors would not be. My subsequent thought was that we could easily link to the WP:MAINSPACE page on "identity-based harassment", but I find that none exists. I then considered Wiktionary, but no entry exists. I further find that no immediately available, suitable, reliable sources exist which we could leverage to build an article which would be expected to survive WP:AfD on WP:GNG grounds. Food for thought.
Searching for a solution which coveys the intent of what we, collectively, are trying to achieve, but which also avoids the inevitable WP:BIKESHEDDING over the contents of a prescriptive list - I suggest removal of the list aspect; replacing with a mention of two to three of the most obvious examples, phrased as examples, within a wider context that all harassment is prohibited. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is why it is complicated to get something done. Please note the intent was, and is, to bring a very long standing WMF policy in line with, and to include "editors". Many just assumed that the discrimination policy covered all aspects of Wikipedia including editors but that was not the case. Also note the paragraph begins with "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.", which actually covers everything that might "reduce an editor's enjoyment". The beginning of the second paragraph expounds even further with "The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians.", so I am not sure what the real concern is? Otr500 (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Otr500, Many thanks for your input here, and also for your thoughts at Jimbo's Talk page, which I, personally, found insightful and enlightening.
I share, in part, your bemusement (for want of a better word) as to the issue with those particular sections of the policy. I believe that the policy does a good job of describing harassment, and of condemning harassment, including outlining why it is harmful to the Project. I do not believe, however, that the policy as it stands does a good job of broadly prohibiting harassment. Currently, the only prohibitive statement in the policy is that relating to identity-based harassment. I respectfully suggest that this is not only not the most common type of harassment occurring, but also that it is not the most injurious in terms of editor enjoyment, editor retention or editor gender gap.
Finally, I would like to express my admiration for your suggestion of a "core conduct policies" page, analogous to our "core content policies" page. This is a fantastic idea. If there is an RfC, please canvass me for a strongest possible support. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
One additional thought: w.r.t Otr500's reference to the WMF WP:Non discrimination policy, and wordsmithing of the policy here, we could do a lot worse than simply repeating vebratim the wording used there: on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The only concern I would have is that the other legally protected characteristics asks the question "protected where?". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And thank you very much for your kind words. A problem is enforcement. When something is horrible, we can't be too nice. From what I see, as evidenced by the duplicated admin. content, and other discussions I have seen, there is a concern of protection of admins as well as protections against. An Admins reluctance to go beyond a certain point, for any fearful reason, should be addressed. I feel that if an Admin is "attacked" by any editor for making a call on hurtful, potentially damaging, or slanderous attacks, then that editor should be blocked indefinitely but certainly for a time until ArbCom or BASC can rule.
Reporting, There are issues if an editor initiates proceedings. Contacting the alleged offender is the first thing on the list to get the ball rolling. On BS things that is perfectly alright but what about more serious instances? If an admin makes a ban (that always seems backwards to me as ban means to banish) why not have a mandatory reporting to ArbCom? This will take the issue from one editor. This will still only work if ArbCom tightens the criteria on letting offenders being able to slide.
In case someone is shamed, not a type-A aggressive personality, very hurt to the point of despondence, or any other reason, the process is slanted far far to the side of the accused. Change that. Hold those that intend harm to another accountable. Is an editor considered good because he/she makes thousands of edits (I have seen some that do 20 small ones on one article), even though this person hurts others?
Enforcement: It is not really a big stretch for anyone to see an egregious attack or harassment. If a word or words are used as an expression of thoughts or ideas that is one thing but we (editors, admins, WMF, ArbCom) will be able to tell the difference between that and a "directed" attack against an individual or group. I suggested a mandatory 24 hour "safety block", or ban, or whatever it would be called as a way to be able to state-- "That's enough", and figure out a solution.
I would think, if improvements are really a goal (I have weighed in on this), that we can find a way short of making yet more policies that have no "meat" in them for enforcement without the dreaded "police state" fear. I have seen excuses that some words are considered very bad on Wikipedia and other places but in some countries more normal. "When if Rome" or in "My house" would mean--- that may be alright but don't do it here. I may say a few cuss words, this may not offend my friends, but when I go to my sisters house I know it would offend her so don't do it. I just know that either there is a problem, or not. If there is, and it has escaped being rectified for so long, think outside the box. Constructive discussions are the only way to hash this out and not have them all over Wikipedia. Just my opinions though. I am in new territory here so someone would have to let me know the pros and cons. Otr500 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose additions from Grants:Friendly space expectations

Looking at some discussions on the highly estimable WT:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red page</shameless plug>, I noticed a link to Grants:Friendly space expectations, which contains the following list describing harassment: 

We do not tolerate harassment of contributors in any form. Harassment includes:
1 offensive comments related to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, or religion
2 violence, threats of violence, deliberate intimidation and personal attacks
3 stalking, following, or continued one-on-one communications after being asked to cease
4 sustained disruption of discussion
5 deliberate “outing” and/or doxing of any person’s identity without their consent
6 publication of non-harassing private communication

This gives identity based harassment pride of place, but also covers the other types of harassment.

I suggest that this might be a good addition to the first section, replacing the current single sentence, covering only identity based harassment. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying to list everything that is prohibited is both impossible and unnecessary. See WP:CREEP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, I wholeheartedly agree with you w.r.t WP:CREEP, and that we should not attempt to list every possible type of harassment or overly define the fine details. I do however, make the observation, that we do currently list the items here in policy already - 1.Recent addition to #Harassment and disruption; 2:#Threats, (WP:NPA?); 3:WP:HOUND; 4:(WP:CIVIL?); 5:WP:OUTING; 6:WP:EMAILPOST. It's essentially a list of the current sections of this policy page, so I'm not sure that there's any great amount of instruction creep.
What we don't currently have, and I suggest that the policy could use, is a general statement that harassment is prohibited. I do wholeheartedly agree that any policy should be a list of examples rather than an exhaustive list of prohibited behaviours - to prevent Wikilawyering.
We currently only explicitly prohibit identity-based harassment. I suggest that an inclusion of this kind would aid understanding that all harassment is unacceptable.
I do also suggest that a brief, dedicated section on identity-based harassment might be a good addition. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think essentially I'm just suggesting a brief summary table listing the sections that we already have in the policy. Similar to what we do with a lede for articles. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_4&oldid=1144418868"