Wikipedia talk:Harassment

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)

• Support: as far as it goes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
  
• Oppose ...but only so I can propose: "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted/unwarranted contacts". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:04, 23 July 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.

---

Closing comments

I have spent the last few hours going over an issue that is obviously, and for obvious reasons, contentious for a large amount of Wikipedia editors. Harassment, and how we deal with it, is nonetheless an extremely important issue, and this I'm especially proud of the members of the community who have indefatigably tried to create an environment on this site that is conducive to a happy and enjoyable editing experience regardless of an editor's race, sex, gender, etc. Before I go any further, I would like to thank all of the participants of this discussion.

Now, to the heart of it all: there is, at this time, no consensus to create a harassment policy that deals specifically with sexual harassment. Those who support such a measure state that the need for a sexual harassment policy was demonstrated in the recent Gamergate controversy and the Interactions at GGTF arbitration case. They further state that Wikipedia should make every effort to ensure that persons of all genders, sexual orientations and gender identities are welcomed. Meanwhile, a number of editors have rightly pointed out that creating a policy that deals specifically with sexual harassment elevates one type of harassment above all other forms of harassment, even when all types of harassment should be prohibited.

There is, however, consensus to create a policy that deals with identity-based harassment. I interpret this to mean harassment on the basis of race, gender, religion, age or disability. In making this decision, I weighed arguments that stated instruction creep or redundancy less. Surely, a bit of instruction creep and redundancy should be tolerated as a necessary evil if it means creating an environment that is more tolerant of and hospitable to all types of editors. In opposition of the creation of an "identity-based harassment policy", several editors have pointed out the following things.

In creating an identity-based harassment policy, the consensus below notes a few things. First, any harassment policy should not contain a list of "bad words" you cannot say. Words carry different connotations in different places, and a blanket ban may be both unwise and counterproductive. (As a personal example, grew up and currently live in a country that is majority Black, with a tiny white minority; the use of the word "nigger" is perfectly fine, rarely used pejoratively or as an asteism, and is apart of our everyday vernacular.) Second, the free and respectful expression of one's thoughts, consensus, and the pursuit thereof are vital to Wikipedia, and nothing in any harassment policy should be intended or construed to abridge any of them. Third, several editors have pointed out a perceived lackadaisical enforcement of Wikipedia's harassment policy. Speaking for myself, perhaps it is wise to clarify in our extant harassment policy and our future identity-based harassment policy how administrators are to act in cases of harassment.

Per the consensus achieved here, I have boldly created a new policy page that deals specifically with identity-based harassment. It's a start, I suppose, and was modeled after several other harassment policies I saw. As is customary, major changes should reflect consensus. I welcome commentary on my talk page or Wikipedia talk:Identity based harassment regarding this close or any such issues. In all honesty, and to paint a utopian view, this is one of those days where consensus just works. And it's beautiful. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I've left some of the below discussion open. I'll check later if I can close those too. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sexual harassment policy

Should Wikipedia have:

1. No policy specifically addressing sexual harassment (Oppose)
2. A sexual harassment policy or a part of the harassment policy focused on sexual harassment. (Support)
3. A harassment policy that specifically mentions identity-based harassment (including, but not limited to, sex, gender, race, age, ability, etc.) Added by EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) @CorporateM and Chillum: added some clarification.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Support 2 to have a section on sexual harassment as nom A quick search shows strong consensus among reliable sources that sexual harassment policies do reduce incidences of sexual harassment.

According to the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights “policies and procedures specifically designed to address sexual harassment … are a very effective means of making students and employees aware of what constitutes sexual harassment, that that conduct is prohibited sex discrimination, and that it will not be tolerated... awareness, in turn, can be a key element in preventing sexual harassment.” Our own Wikipedia article-content on sexual harassment policies says "According to Dr. Orit Kamir, the most effective way to avoid sexual harassment in the work place... is for the employer to adopt a clear policy prohibiting sexual harassment and to make it very clear to their employees."[2]

Many open-source projects have a code of conduct that specifically identifies sexual harassment,[3][4] and a specific sexual harassment policy is de-facto among employers. But as far as I can tell Wikipedia has no single conduct policy that specifically identifies it, despite overwhelming ubiquity of sexual harassment clauses in conduct policies in the world elsewhere and consensus in the real-world that it's effective at reducing incidences of sexual harassment.

There are many arguments against a sexual harassment policy. It could lead to a slippery slope, it could be instruction creep and so on. However, I don't think these should take precedence over the priority of making Wikipedia a safe and welcome place, especially for female editors. These are bureaucratic details in the scope of an opportunity to reduce incidences of harassment. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current conduct policies cover harassment (WP:HARASS) in an appropriate manner. There is no need for policy covering a specific type (WP:CREEP). Why should this type of harassment be given special treatment? Is it worse than racial or religious harassment? Users have the option to remain anonymous (unless they're wanting to run for a WMF position or become an Oversighter/ CheckUser), which potentially handles a lot of these issues. On a separate note, if the harrasment happens on Wikipedia, it can be dealt with reasonably; If it happens somewhere else, there's not much that can be done by the Wikipedia community. ArbCom's recent invitation to create a page about dealing with harassment may be a good idea in the form of an Essay, but not with new policy.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• No type of harassment is acceptable, we don't need to iterate all of the different types unless there are accepted practices that can be described that are specific to a type of harassment. Chillum 20:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding this point, if the policy is instruction creep and is also effective at reducing harassment, I see no problem with this. Certainly reducing sexual harassment should be the priority over avoiding instruction creep. Plus the current policy already does iterate different types of harassment for similar reasons, to help deter the behavior. CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Chillum: Can you name a single major organization or company who refuses to have a sexual harassment policy on this basis? Can you provide a single bit of justification for how gendered harassment is the same as any other besides "harassment is being mean to people and sexual harassment is also being mean to people"? I'm a bit sorry for being glib because I respect you, but I have absolutely no respect for this view. It's not borne out by any research, not empathetic at all to people who are harassed for who they are rather than which pages they deleted and profoundly unconvincing when used as justification for not having a sexual harassment policy. Protonk (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think you have read more than I have written. I said we don't need to describe it unless there are "accepted practices that can be described that are specific to a type of harassment". I certainly made no claim that different forms of harassment were identical. Chillum 17:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. We should definitely have a gender harassment policy. Something could be developed as part of Wikipedia:Harassment or Wikipedia:Non discrimination policy. Sarah ^(talk) 20:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: GamerGate and the GGTF disputes clearly demonstrate that there is a need. Specific language could be added to WP:HARASS or the non-discrimination policy to clarify that there are forms of sexual harassment that are not acceptable on wikipedia(as well as race and religion, though under US law, those two have strict scrutiny Constitutional protection while sexual harassment has middle-tier scrutiny, hence we may need to be very clear in our guidelines and policies than we are at present). Montanabw^(talk) 20:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Recent Arbcom decisions have revealed that Wikipedia lacks an unambiguous policy against (a) calling an editor a "c**t", (b) sending them anonymous rape threats to dissuade them from editing, and (c) posting their (faked) nude pictures offsite in order to dissuade them from editing. In addition, we appear to have no policy against recruiting non-editors to harass Wikipedia editors in order to gain an advantage on-wiki for their friends or employers. Arbcom has made it clear that too much sexual harassment has been routinely tolerated. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ad a.: Muddying the waters is not a useful thing to do. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I appreciate Mark's comment and do find it useful. Ongepotchket (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (c) is not true. Arbcom's recent decision found that doing so is absolutely against policy and would be met with stern measures if there was any way of knowing who did it. Arbcom made it clear that there was no evidence presented that is useful in determining who posted that photograph, and that those who might hold useful evidence (the operators of the site where the photograph was posted) had refused to provide it absent a court order, which would not be granted to either arbcom, its members or the WMF due to lack of standing. So, unless you want to make an accusation the same thing as guilt, what can be done? That's not a rhetorical question, nor is it intended to be snide or a cheap shot. I'd love to see something done here. But what can be done when there is no power to act outside Wikipedia and no way to connect off-site actions with on-wiki accounts? GoldenRing (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "cunt" as an example is not sexual harassment per se. I lived in the UK for several years and there it is used more often to describe men who are major league jerks. Even if directed towards a woman by an American, to constitute harassment it would need to be part of a repeated and persistent campaign of unwanted attention. oh, and the word "pants" means a woman's undergarment by the way in England. The point being is we should not be policing words but behaviour.Mattnad (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    On a nerdy point, I am an Englishman and "pants" is a cross-gender term: I have worn pants all my life. You may be thinking of "panties", which men seldom wear. Calling something "pants" has no sexual connotation over here. However I agree that the behaviour is the thing we need to get at, words are just symptoms. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Do we need a lawyer before we take action? The harassed individual must have some idea of which Wiki editor/s is/are harassing them. We use IP blocking as an area-denial weapon against anonymous disruptors and that hurts innocent users too. Why can't we treat abusers as seriously as disruptors and deploy area-denial weapons against them? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support While it's already covered under existing policy, it's nonetheless important to make a strong statement and reiterate these points. Even if this isn't guaranteed to make massive positive changes there's no way anything bad could come from it.Bosstopher (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'm with Sarah on this, if I understand her correctly: as part of the harassment policy. What we should not have is a list of bad words, not even if contextualized with the genders of the speaker and the one spoken to and the audience at large; it's useless and essentializing, and a recipe for administrative disaster. But if our harassment policy could make clear that gender discrimination and sexual harassment are explicitly not tolerated and blockable, sure. The same should go for racial discrimination, of course, in this overwhelmingly white community. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Close and move - CorporateM, there's already a discussion on VPP about this. To the best of my knowledge, changes to policy must be discussed there and not an RFC like this. Moreover, this is just a show of support poll, not an actual suggestion to create one. Close this and move discussion to the VPP section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Changes to policy can be discussed wherever editors wish to discuss them. Please don't wikilawyer about this. --ScWizard (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there is good momentum in this discussion and I don't believe a Village Pump proposal is required or necessary before starting an RFC. On the contrary, policies can even be updated through bold editing. CorporateM (Talk) 22:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

See me comments in the discussion section below. This is a good faith effort, but has problems (not least of which is the fact that we're restricting ourselves to HARASS by discussing it here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support the concept of adding a section or sections to this harassment policy stating that identity-based harassment (broken out to include sexual and gender harassment, racial harassment, nationality harassment) in particular are not tolerated, and that unwarranted references to an editor's gender, sexuality, race, or nationality are inappropriate and may be considered harassing. (I have observed considerable nationality-based harassment in articles on the Balkans, so we do need to include that.) If this should be discussed somewhere else, okay, but I see that as improving the wording of a policy, not a new policy. I oppose having a separate sexual harassment policy. All identity-based harassment is hateful. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Bobby Mac. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Harassment of any kind is unacceptable, and as such we should not give one kinf more importance than another. However, there are unique aspects to sexual harassment which make this necessary. Examples are easy to find, but for those who are wondering, posting pictures (fake or otherwise) to porn sites would be one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - when you come down to it, all our conduct polices are special cases of meta:jerk, so "this is just a special case" is not a sufficient argument against. Clearly this is a common enough and important enough special case that it is regularly separted from other conduct policies in other collaborative environments. --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. There actually is a prohibition of sexual harassment of sorts on Wikipedia, but it is very badly placed: it's on a section titled "Identifying incivility" in WP:Civility, as a non-"direct" form of harassment. The admins do actually take enforcement action against sexual harassment. I proposed some time ago to completely rewrite the civility policy at WT:Civility/sandbox, with [5] as the relevant edit. I think that by drastically shortening the civility policy, taking out the general etiquette advice and sticking to what is actually a rule of some sort, we can make this much clearer. I think we should consider further consolidating policies into one document editors are actually supposed to read rather than fragmenting them. Nonetheless, until such basic work is complete, a separate policy might make sense, given Wikipedia's particularly bad reputation at present on sexual issues. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. As worded, the RfC can only reach an unambiguous conclusion of it closes as 'oppose'. The 'support' wording is for "A sexual harassment policy or a part of the harassment policy focused on sexual harassment" - two different options. Personally, I can see no real merits in having a separate policy for one specific form of harassment - but can certainly see a justification for the existing general policy on harassment going into more detail over specific forms such harassment might take: e.g. sexually-related, ethnically/'race'-related faith related, political, etc, etc. dividing a general policy on harassment into subsections is an incitement to Wikilawyering, and unnecessary if a proper general policy is formulated and enforced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose We have WP:CIVILITY and WP:HARASS. Should stay a generic rule. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support - There are ample evidence that despite most conduct (though arguably not all) that would fall under such a policy being already prohibited by more general policies, there is a very strong gap in understanding in some parts of the community that sexist comments are not acceptable under any circumstances. Those who oppose on the grounds that we already ban this might want to reconsider - if we technically ban it but serious cases fall through the cracks, then clarity is needed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport #3 if I understand the choices right - we should absolutely have a policy on identity-related harassment, whether based on gender, sexuality, race, nationality, age, etc.; we do not need a specific sexual harassment policy. I do support having a section of this policy to outline the types of harassment and what WP would consider constitutive (overly generalized or fictitious) examples of each type (eg "Sexual harassment would be considered...") in addition to any general catchall, as well as having appropriate list of off-wiki resources that may be more specific to certain types of harassment. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Masem: I've added a third option that I think fits what you describe. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's what I would support. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've seen some arguments that this policy isn't necessary on account of other policies. But it's clear to me that many would be more comfortable with a specific policy in place to assure them of their right to contribute. If some bit of redundancy is the only cost of welcoming them, then of course, let's do it. Yes, WP:CIVIL already asks people not to be rude. Yes, WP:NPA asks that we don't consider personal characteristics in an editing discussion. Maybe that's the same protections a sexual harassment policy would offer. But it isn't offering the same peace of mind or the same strength of protection as a standalone policy. The absence of specific sexual harassment policy suggests a lack of concern and interest in the problem. I don't believe any harm in redundant guidelines could ever outweigh the benefit of welcoming a wider range of editors. Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Differentiated support. (i.e Support 3), namely strong support for a mention of sexual harassment and hate speech, for instance as bullet points, in the general harassment policy but opposition to a separate page specifically on sexual harassment – as opposed to harassment based on other criteria such as ethnic or social origin, religious or political affiliation (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, etc. Support is also based on the policy applying only to serious misconduct involving persistent relational aggression that needs to be dealt with immediately and very severely, not to other forms of undesirable behaviour covered by other policies. --Boson (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[edited]

Note to closer: The text of the question was subsequently changed (option 3 was added). Since the question was whether to have a policy, not whether to have a separate policy, some commenters who have headed their opinion Support may be expressing the same opinion as others who have headed their opinion Oppose It may depend on divining how each editor undertood the question. --Boson (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as all Wikipedians are gender neutral & should be treated as such. Don't divide the community. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, every Wikipedian has the option of being described as gender neutral, female or male. The harassment policy applies equally to all. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support sexual harassment policy. In a project where we struggle to bring in and keep women and minorities, it should be made explicitly clear that we do concern ourselves with types of abuse that those groups are prone to suffering. It doesn't mean general harassment isn't bad; it just means that we're acknowledging that these particular types, which are often overlooked and ignored, are considered bad too. Making that explicit is important exactly because victimized minorities cannot take for granted that anywhere they go, this kind of harassment won't be tolerated; unless a community says out loud "you are safe here", it's often true that they're not safe there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose wikilawyering, such a policy would be copying anti-discrimination legislation here instead of relying on our own policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. Would it be implicit an editor has committed a criminal offence if such a policy was in place? There is no specific racism policy either, but racist abuse isn't allowed and will certainly be a blockable offense when taken to ANI based on existing policies and conventions. There are plenty of ways to harrass others and every single one of them doesn't need its own policy. --Pudeo' 14:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • The US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights is irrelevant here because sexual harassment in the workplace is not the same as sexual harassment on a project. I don't think many people will be saying "have sex with me or you're fired"; many of the behaviors involved aren't relevant.
  • I don't accept the argument "There are many arguments against a sexual harassment policy. It could lead to a slippery slope, it could be instruction creep and so on. However, I don't think these should take precedence over the priority of making Wikipedia a safe and welcome place, especially for female editors." That is essentially saying "this is so important that we don't need to worry about due process or nasty side effects". Nothing is so important that you shouldn't worry about due process and nasty side effects.
  • The invocation of Gamergate in the "support" !votes has me really worried about bad agendas here. I don't buy the anti-Gamergate narrative and I don't want this policy to become a way of further kicking people when they are down because the Gamergate article, while negative, isn't negative *enough*. (And if Gamergate is invoked to support this, does that mean if I were to successfully argue in favor of Gamergate here, that would be a reason to oppose it?)
  • One commentor says that we need this because of offsite harassment. I disagree. If you want a policy against offiste harassment, have one, and it will cover offsite sexual harassment. If you don't have a policy against offsite harassment, don't shoehorn it in here.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support; this is a good thing, a necessary thing, and not a thing that violates how "gender neutral" Wikipedia is (gender neutral my ass). Ken, let me say how much I appreciate you explaining that you don't want Gamergate invoked here while also making absolutely sure to tell us how you feel about Gamergate. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

For someone else to invoke it, and me to respond, is not the same thing as me invoking it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Heck no! For someone else to invoke it, and for you to respond with your opinions on it while complaining that it's a factor in anyone's decision, however, is totally ludicrous. Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support. It's long overdue, both supported by common sense, and by the evidence that people are being sexually harassed daily. That sexual harassment disproportionally affects women, gay men, and transsexuals is of no relevance, sexual harassment is wrong and needs to die. Opposing this on the grounds that policies need to be gender neutral forgets that this policy would cover sexual harassment against all genders by all genders. For those who are 'reductionists' or believe this is 'already covered' / "instruction creep", this is no different than WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO existing. GNG is the general guideline, NASTRO is how GNG applies in a certain class of specific cases. A sexual harassment policy/guideline would be how CIVIL/NOATTACK etc... apply in specific cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - the fact that we are even having people oppose having a sexual harassment policy is evidence of how fucking toxic our community is. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  +1. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  +1 CorporateM (Talk) 19:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between opposing a separate policy on sexual harassment, and condoning sexual harassment. Are you suggesting that some of the comments here can reasonably be construed as condoning sexual harassment? If so, are you bundling anyone who opposes a separate policy with those who in your opinion, condone sexual harassment?• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2 The view that gendered and sexual harassment is no different from other forms is pernicious and wrong. It's also convenient because it allows us to ignore the victims of harassment and downplay the seriousness of the problem. I'm disappointed but not too surprised to see so many long term editors (including those in positions of relative power and respect) espouse this view. I'm appalled (but again, not very surprised) to see that view used to justify not doing anything about the problem. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Protonk I don't think that the "view" is that it is no different, I think what is being looked for is operational differences - in the sense that, say, a security team might have a different response to a gun threat than to a knife threat. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

• Support. While a more general policy against harassment is certainly necessary, it's also appropriate to specifically call out—and take measures against—what is perhaps the most common and pervasive form of harassment that we see on Wikipedia. Further, the assertion, above, that "I don't think many people will be saying 'have sex with me or you're fired"; many of the behaviors involved aren't relevant" is sadly incorrect; unfortunately, we have seen incidents of sexual harassment which have taken fundamentally different forms from other types of identity-based harassment, and which have involved many of the same behaviors that would be of concern in a workplace. Kirill ^[talk] 16:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. At first I opposed the idea but someone explained to me that there was recently a case where someone sexually harassed some, and just going by this page Harassment, they should have been banned for repeated offenses. But they played dumb, and so did some admins that should have known better. We need something more specific about what sexual harassment is so playing dumb is not viable. Popish Plot (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support #3 - Struck old vote, added option 3 which I strongly support. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support #3. A more clearly defined (and better enforced) policy on personal identity-based harassment in general is the way to go. If well-written, it will cover anything a more specific policy could, and avoid unnecessary disputes and Wikilawyering about which policy applies where. Keep it simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support #2 While I also support policies against any identity based harassment as proposed in choice 3, I think it is simpler and will be more expedient in terms of drafting policy to address sexual harassment separately. Considering the gender gap on WP and also witnessing the hounding that has affected multiple female members of GGTF, I believe a sexual harassment policy seems to be an immediate requirement.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support even if much of the policy replicates existing policy, the examples can and should be different. We also need to extend this to any "official" IRC channels. ϢereSpielChequers 22:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3, preferably, and as with the commentator above: please extend this to IRC channels, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support #3. Many, many good reasons covered above. Per BoboMeowCat, I think a sexual harassment policy is urgent, however I think the current draft below is headed in the right direction to cover the broader problem. If this becomes a sticking point, then the issue will need to be raised again, as this is important. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #2, but #3 wouldn't be a terrible way to handle it either; the important thing is that we address it in some fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 (or #2 as second choice). Along with several here, I feel more should be done to tackle all forms of harassment on Wikipedia. Easy access to enforcement of existing conduct policies would be a start, although clarification of this policy can't hurt. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 - if we're going to improve harassment policy, I don't understand why we'd ignore other forms.Mattnad (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support both both a sexual harassment policy and also broader identity based harassment policy. Additionally, the wording of the terms of use and the general harassment policy would include gender harassment so we make it explicit that this type of harassment will not be tolerated on WMF websites, and off wiki. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 (or #2 as a second choice) - This problem needs to be addressed directly. I think it would be best to include all forms of identity harassment, but #2 would also be a good start. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as either a separate page, or a separate section. Initially I had in mind a separate page, which is why I created WP:Sexual_harassment. However a separate section would also be fine. I figure once it's separately addressed in some way shape or form, it can be revised from there. --ScWizard (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 (and #2) - it is important to protect people who are being harassed, on any basis. Maximilianklein (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #2 per Bobo, as addressing an immediate need. – SJ + 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #2, we need a specific policy that addresses sexual harassment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated above, existing policies suffice. This is a solution looking for a problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3. However, I think the policy is the comparatively easy bit, the difficult bit is the old argument that goes, "Okay, what x said was bad/unacceptable but how do you know that they wouldn't have said it to another editor who isn't female/homosexual/etc.", claiming it to be a breach of the civility rules rather than the a breach of any new harassment policy. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #2 with #3 as a backup. We need to be explicit and unambiguous in stating that sexual harassment will not be tolerated, and we must enforce that policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia has about a 9:1 male:female ratio, a bad reputation for being hostile to women and other minority editors, and ongoing problems with sexual harassment. Having an explicit policy against sexual harassment is an important step in fixing all of that, since existing policy clearly isn't making it apparent that there should be no tolerance for this sort of thing. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2 or 3 - obviously sexual harassment is a well known problem (and Wikipedia is not a walled garden) -- true, all ad hominems are against policy but many people seem to have problems really understanding that Latin borrow word. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support for #3, less so for #2. Creating a separate policy to address solely sexual harassment would invariably raise the question "what about all the other types of discrimination? should they get their own policy pages too?" which would certainly lead to WP:CREEP but a catch all policy that captures as many forms of harassment as possible is something that is long overdue. Existing policies are obviously insufficient else this question wouldn't even need to be raised. Blackmane (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant. Our current policy says plainly right from the start what constitutes harassment and there is no reason to see "identity-based" harassment or sexual harassment as not falling within the scope of the current definition. What is not explicitly covered under harassment would reasonably be covered under our civility policies. Both policies have already been enforced in situations such as the ones we are discussing. It seems to me that trying to create a specific policy is more likely to result in the policing of ideas in a way that will inhibit the freedom of discussion necessary for a collaborative environment on Wikipedia, which is detrimental to the purpose of creating informational content that adheres to a neutral point of view. The current proposed draft more or less confirms my concerns that this will be a dangerous broadening of the policy and a threat to the very purpose of this site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 as it may reduce gaming of the system. It shouldn't be necessary, but seems like it is. 105.225.131.63 (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support #2 as first choice and #3 as second choice. The present policy is inadequate. "Instruction creep?" Too bad. The objections are similar to arguments against "hate crime" laws, where it was argued that existing laws against murder and assault already covered hate crimes. Edison (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The original proposal makes an incorrect analogy, anyway, because workplace sexual harassment can comprise more than can be done on-wiki; inappropriate touching, situations where two people are alone together, etc. aren't going to happen. Forms of sexual harassment that can happen on-wiki are already forbidden. Harassment is harassment, regardless of why you're doing it. The Devil's Advocate makes a solid point: idea policing, such as that evidenced by Edison's likening of this to idea-policing hate crimes laws, will get in the way of building an encyclopedia. Enforce the harassment, civility, etc. policies fairly, get rid of people for sexual harassment and for other forms of harassment, and don't make some policy violations more equal than others just because of the method of harassment. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• The current policies as written are getting in the way of writing an encyclopedia that lacks systemic bias. There is nothing to encourage the community to prioritize stopping editors from engaging in a pattern of comments that creates a hostile working environment for women and LGBT people. And the most extreme cases of sexual harassment are not treated differently than milder forms of policy violations that annoy the majority demographic on Wikipedia English. I'm going on the record to say that I want the same level of policing and enforcement of sexual harassment (mild to severe forms) as edit warring, socking, and No Legal Threats. Interestingly, one of the main arguments stated against an onsite Friendly Space Exceptions policy is that there will not be support given by administrators to enforce the policy since it is unclear that violating the expectations is currently a violation of policy. So, spell out a policy that states that sexual harassment is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose All forms of harrasment are and should be barred already. I think it is highly invidious to try to single out soem forms as worse than others -- i have seen mild sexual harassment and severe religious harassment on Wikipedia, and also the reverse. It may be thqat we need to deal more strictly with harrasment, but this proposal will only foster division and will not help the project. DES ^(talk) 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• 1 (Oppose both #2 and #3), though 3 is less objectionable. I'm quite concerned about the gender gap. But there's something deeply offensive about all this "my category's freedom from harassment is more important than every other category's" special pleading. I feel this keenly as someone with a disability, and as someone from a multi-ethnic family. Every single kind of harassment that could sanely be defined as such is equally wrong and equally detrimental to WP's mission, editors, and audience. Here's what the principal author of the WP:Sexual harassment draft says: 'Sexually harassment casues more harm than other forms of harassment. It's a more serious offense .... sexual harassment is particularly harmful and serious.'. Even if you think there's proof that sexual harassment is somehow worse that other forms, that's meaningless here: Harassment is already prohibited, period. You can't make a cogent argument that other forms of harassment must be made to seem less important, must be less prohibited, or less enforced against, than sexual harassment. And what evidence is there that the current policy is not working? Show me a case of sexual harassment that admins, ArbCom, or the community has refused to address. Just because there's a gender gap doesn't mean it's because of sexual harassment; correlation does not equal causation.

  Note the comment above 'the fact that we are even having people oppose having a sexual harassment policy is evidence of how fucking toxic our community is', a hypocritical mass personal attack thinly rewording "you are a sexist jerk if you don't agree with me". Many of the editors campaigning for this change are the same as those doing so on other gender-related issues. Cf. commentary like 'does the fact that she's now female squick you out ...?' here, and '...a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks' here accusing anyone disagreeing with a TG-related proposal of being masculist and transphobic. There's a truly nasty undercurrent to all of this WP:GREATWRONGS activism.

  WP already has an adequate harassment policy, and it already covers sexual harassment, and all other harassment – including the very kind I've been quoting. "Be careful what you wish for."

  PS: We could, as various laws and such do, enumerate in a list what kinds of harassment we mean, but there's nothing to be gained by this; it'll just open WP:GAMING loopholes that trolls will exploit to get away with harassing people for things not on the list.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I support this, but it should be made clear that other forms of harassment are not any less prohibited, i.e., that this is just a matter of highlighting, for clarity, one particular form of harassment that we prohibit. The problem, however, is that all our conduct policies cannot be currently effectively enforced against a minority of established users who believe that their "veteran" status or perceived merits as content creators gives them license to behave however they want. It won't be any different with this policy. Until this structural problem is solved, I think that adding new conduct policies of any sort is merely window-dressing.  Sandstein  08:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - we already have a harassment policy. We don't need to set up a hierarchy of victims, everyone is equal here. Kelly ^hi! 18:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whether it's sexual, race, or religion ... harassment is harassment and we shouldn't just single out one ... Any form of harassment here isn't obviously allowed. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The naive position that "harassment is harassment" fails to account for the wide ranging sexual and gender harassment that flourishes here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Have you even read what I wrote ? .... My point (which I stated above anyway) was that we shouldn't be singling one out here. –Davey2010^Talk 04:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• support the policy calling out specific attention to types of harassment that are not acceptable, particularly ones which are noted to be specific issues with which Wikipedia has a noted history of not dealing with appropriately, such as sex/gender. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that particular types of harassment should be mentioned, but I would suggest calling them all identity-based harassment. This includes nationality-based harassment as well as gender harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Niether support nor oppose We need to adopt WMF's Anti-discrimination policy and actually enforce it.--v/r - TP 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support both 2 and 3, as both are reasonable and make sense logically as written, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose reundant: harassment in any form is unacceptable: highlighting one form relative to others is both demeaning to the others and unduly emphasising the one. Please note that this discussion has been raised in venues outside the purview of en-WP. Note also the comments on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sitush: Where? If there's WP:MEATPUPPETry going on the closer will need to see the evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've seen it mentioned on the WMF-hosted gender gap mailing list. No idea if that might lead to meatpuppetry but it is a very grey area, being a highly-moderated mailing list that also has a non-WMF, female-only spin-off hosted by Systers. I think you can pretty well guarantee that the mention on the GG list will bring people here, and those that arrive will hold a similar opinion. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support option 2, a specific sexual harassment policy, per comments by MarkBernstein, Kirill, Fluffernutter, Protonk, and others. This is a necessary step for the project. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3. We should have had this a long time ago. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Godsy. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There is already a harassment policy that covers this. Adding a sexual harassment policy would require all users to reveal their gender. I do not think what gender an editor is should be information required to edit. There is already a harassment policy that covers all harassment, so stop being jerks to one another and actually judge people based on their edits. FlossumPossum (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Sexual harassment policy won't work any better than harassment policy. Corporate policies work because corporations work exactly opposite to wikipedia. Without removing the doxxing prohibition and without removing off-site or IRL incidents, it's fundamentally flawed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Godsy, Chillum etc. And on the basis that such incidents are extremely uncommon.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3 I think these are compatible, if a generic identity-harassment policy calls out sexual harassment as a specific case. And it should call out other common types as specific cases, as well as stating clearly that the list is not exhaustive but illustrative. If this results in a little WP:CREEP to point up the unacceptability of such harassment, then we should put the welfare of the victims above that. If it really makes no difference, let's find that out the hard way and not pontificate from our armchairs. OTOH, we might surprise ourselves. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose all forms of harassment are strictly forbidden, so there is no need to create separate policy. However, I would support adding "identity-based harassment" (which would include harassment based on race, religion, age, disability, etc. in addition to sexual harassment) in general to the policy's list of examples. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Do we really need a separate policy for this? All forms of harassment should be banned. It seems ridiculous to try and list out every form of harassment and say "They're all inexcusable" rather than just saying "All forms of harassment are inexcusable." --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 04:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - As stated numerous times above, sexual harassment is already barred by both project policy and Foundation policy. Making a point to differentiate it from other forms of harassment just for the sake of doing it would seem to be an empty and disingenuous gesture. What's more, differentiating sexual harassment policy as more serious and severe insults and deprioritizes victims of other forms of harassment. Perhaps the harassment policy should be strengthened to protect the community, but arbitrarily singling out sexual harassment is simply not the way to go about doing it. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. All harassment is already prohibited per existing policy, which includes sexual harassment, gender-based harassment, and all other identity-based harassment. Additional policy without practical effect can do nothing but weaken the existing position on harassment, as if some harassment were somehow more acceptable than other harassment. I would support the inclusion of including various kinds of harassment, including gender-based harassment, in the examples of the existing policy, with the caveat that merely holding unpleasant or offensive opinions publicly or in otherwise normal article discussion does not constitute harassment. — chro • man • cer  11:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have noted already all kinds of harassment are already and rightly considered unacceptable. But the main reason I am opposing is that, according to the 2011 Wikipedia editors study, only 22% of women editors on Wikipedia had unpleasant experiences here. Also, "Only 7% reported receiving inappropriate messages or comments either in their userspace or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Just 4% of women editors in the sample said that they had been stalked online, and 5% said that someone had tried to flirt with them."See here, page 22. IOW, this is not, in my opinion, a big enough problem to warrant a whole separate policy. However, I suppose #3 would be okay with me. Everymorning talk 00:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  That your takeaway from those statistics is "only" and "not a big problem" is...kind of shocking to me. I'm not sure changing your mind is really possible in this kind of oppositional discussion, but please consider that for that 22%/7%/etc of women, it was/is a very big problem, indeed. That it doesn't touch you doesn't mean it's something that doesn't touch others who would like to be able to have the same kind of safe, comfortable experience many others are able to have. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Everymorning:@Fluffernutter:. The survey results document actually says "Contrary to the perception of some, our data shows that very few women editors feel like they have been harassed, and very few feel Wikipedia is a sexualized environment." A lot would depend on how you look at the numbers. If only 22% of women have had unpleasant experiences, I would consider that very low, because my expectation is that most editors (maybe 75%) have had an unpleasant experience at some point. So then the question comes, do they mean an unpleasant experience specifically related to their gender? Also, if we add race, sexual orientation, etc. as is proposed, then those numbers may start to add up. At what percentage is a policy warranted? From my perspective, I wonder if 1% is enough, since there is no cost associated with having a policy. CorporateM (Talk) 09:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Everymorning:, I think you have misunderstood the statistics. That's 7% of women who were sexually harassed on wiki (not counting e-mail, other websites, etc.) and stuck around anyway, not 7% of women who have ever edited Wikipedia. Also, isn't reported sexual harassment of 7% of female editors (and some men, too) kind of a lot? That works out to nearly two thousand of the editors who were active this month. Isn't two thousand editors maybe enough to justify including the words sexual harassment somewhere in the policy, even if all it does is reduce wikilawyering about whether it's actually prohibited (which has happened)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break

• Support. Well, I have a few issues. First, shouldn't this be in the Wikimedia Terms of Use rather than a Wikipedia policy? Second, isn't it already technically covered by existing policy? And, third, when WP:CIVILITY is regularly ignored, what chance does this have of enforcement? Regardless, I'm willing to support this based on the assumption that even a redundant, ignored policy may be a positive step toward reducing sexual harassment. I don't want my pessimism to hamper a potentially useful change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Harassment with anything added to it is still harassment. I have made a comment (Wikipedia talk:Sexual harassment#Why does this proposed policy imply that other forms of harassment are somehow less objectionable? --or less serious) with the common sense reasoning why "sexual harassment" should not be elevated above other egregious WP:Personal attacks such as bullying, racism or any others. It is too easy to correct what we have with wording like: "Acts of intimidation, prejudice, or discrimination, against any person because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation", that would cover sexual harassment and gender harassment. This should likewise be added to the Wikipedia:CIVILITY and What is considered to be a personal attack? policies. Unlike most editors I feel there is too much toleration for any blatant, egregious, or otherwise potentially dangerous or threatening forms of harassment, and an admin should be allowed a 24 hour block pending resolution. We do not want to discourage editors for contributing but having to wade through "diffs" to determine repeated offenses is giving ammunition to the offender. Any editor that violates these policies and codes of conduct should know it is very serious.

Important: There should not be a "priority of making Wikipedia a safe and welcome place, especially for female editors. Wikipedia should strive to ensure a safe and welcome place for all editors that certainly would include female and younger editors. To all the editors supporting a separate policy or even a "specific sexual harassment" section: The slippery slope of this argument is that I (or someone) will then have precedence to actively seek an exclusive "policy" or "section" to cover each "separate" type of harassment. Tell the parents any of the 4400 teenagers (according to the CDC) that committed suicide, that was not specifically sexually related, that sexual harassment is more serious than the bullying that caused their loss. Let's fix what we have and not try to portray that my problem is worse than yours "because". I have boldly added wording to reflect many concerns to the WP:Harassment policy so please take a look. Otr500 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This shortcut method of saying "especially women" to indicate that women's concerns about poor treatment by men will be taken seriously is a phrase that can evidently be taken the wrong way. Unfortunately, "all editors are safe and welcome" by itself doesn't imply any protection whatsoever for women regarding sexual harassment, because many people don't think sexual harassment is a safety issue. Can you devise some other language to add to "safe and welcome" that would indicate that sexual harassment is not permitted here, and confidentiality in trust and safety issues is assured for women? --Djembayz (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Very strong support — Absolutely. Part of the reason why the male-to-female ratio of editors is so slanted towards the former is because we as a community have failed to adequately address gender-based concerns. Lewd comments, unwanted advances, demeaning remarks (whether explicit or implied), and other forms of abject sexism have absolutely no place on this project and will not be tolerated. Sexual harassment is of such a pervasive and insidious nature as to warrant its own subsection at a bare minimum. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  I don't recall seeing any "Lewd comments, unwanted advances, demeaning remarks" at Wikipedia. Of course there are lots of insults and demeaning comments, but I don't know of any related to sexism. If they are pervasive, perhaps someone could post a couple of links showing a problem? No new policy is needed to prohibit lewd comments or unwanted advances—if anything like that happened the perpetrator would be quickly indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Speaking as a woman, a feminist, and an editor for almost 10 years, I can't recall ever seeing "Lewd comments, unwanted advances, demeaning remarks" either. Perhaps they are common at articles that I don't edit, though a great deal of my editing is for woman-related issues. I'd sure appreciate a link as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  By "pervasive", I was referring to the Internet in general. It's likely that my interpretation of "lewd comments, unwanted advances", etc. was quite a bit broader than yours, but even if it is uncommon, I do think that those things should be highlighted in particular as incompatible with participation on Wikipedia. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  I think you are saying you have never seen a lewd comment or unwanted advance at Wikipedia, but you think a new policy is needed anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  I actually have seen a few instances of sexual harassment on Wikipedia, although I'm hesitant to post links (and most of them would have been rev-deleted anyways). I'm also of the belief that what we see on-wiki does not tell the full story, and that there have been a fair number of cases where editors have used email function (among other things) to make inappropriate remarks directed at female contributors. I think it's important to be unambiguous about our rejection of sexual harassment, to the effect of having its own subsection (among others). Kurtis ^(talk) 04:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  Do you know the current status of the editors who were responsible for what you saw? Are they indeffed, retired, editing? Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  Of three editors at en.wp whose status I know offhand, one has been blocked multiple times but is currently editing freely, one is under formal editing restrictions, and one was already at the block-on-sight state for at least two Wikipedias before I saw any such comments from this editor. In the first two cases, I've seen some admins say that the behavior is okay and some that it is not; in the last, nobody approved but they were divided about whether merely undoing the edit and blocking the IP is sufficient, or whether it should be revdel'ed or oversighted. That's just n=3, but it tends to undercut your claim that unwanted sexual comments are always met with prompt indeffing.
  By the way, writing "John in geometry class is gay" actually is sexual harassment. How often do you think that happens? I'll give you a hint: even if we achieved "six nines" in perfection of edits, it would still happen every ten days year round ...and we're way about the one-in-a-million level for just that one kind of sexual harassment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As I say above, I've never seen examples of sexual harassment to the point that we need a special policy to address it. If I have somehow missed the sexual harassment that many editors believe is going on unaddressed and can read examples of it, I will change my mind and agree that we need a new policy written especially for sexual harassment. But until I see the evidence, IMO a new policy would only mean that Wikipedia caved in to meet the demands of a small group of very verbal editors that feel victimized. Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Gandydancer, there are some examples here of behaviour viewed as sexual harassment (search for "The following list is not exhaustive"). This is from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, so a lot of it doesn't apply to WP; it focuses on real-life harassment, particularly in the workplace. But the list demonstrates that sexual harassment is a lot broader than lewd comments. It's about treating people in particular ways as a result of gender, including making comments about their appearance or mannerisms, patronizing them, using derogatory language about them or other members of the same gender, engaging in unwanted contact, engaging in inappropriate sexual discussion, etc. There's a significant amount of that on Wikipedia.

  I took a page off my watchlist not long ago because there was so much of it on the talk page. When another woman objected to it, she was told off. Most of the men involved meant no harm, but they were blind to the male-centred nature of the exchanges. Sarah ^(talk) 19:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, but I'm well aware of the disgraceful treatment that women have had to bear throughout the ages and even still today. In RL I have worked with women who have been sexually molested as children; people have no idea how common it is and how emotionally devastating it is. I'm old enough to remember the 60s when even women needed "consciousness raising" to help them to see that much of what was considered fair treatment of women was actually far from it. Just as you say above "but [the male editors] were blind to the male-centred nature of the exchanges", back then we women were pretty blind to it as well. I am thankful to the many women who worked so hard to bring the status of women to where it is today and am aware that we still have a long way to go. As you may remember, I strongly objected to the article that suggested that 2014 was a "watershed year" for women's rights. I am thankful and grateful to Jimmy Wales for providing an excellent opportunity to correct the fact that women's contributions to society have been not only overlooked in the past, but frequently even intentionally hidden to support male superiority. A lot of my work here is spent working on helping to promote articles that are related to women. My very first edits here (2006) were prompted by my astonishment when I read as a WP fact that a woman pediatrician's views on atomic energy were overly-simplified because as a children's physician she was accustomed to mostly speaking with children. I keep many articles on my watchlist because they are obvious targets for vandalism, NOW for example. If I see harassment on any page I speak out (as I recently did on Dr. Chrissy's page). I have not seen sexual harassment on talk pages, but if I ever did I would certainly not leave the page because of it as you say you did. I'd stay on that page and duke it out until I felt satisfied that it had been dealt with properly. (BTW, what page was that?) Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I don't want to give examples, because the editors often mean no harm, and in the case I cited clearly didn't. But a locker-room mentality develops that is very off-putting. I tried to add this to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, but was reverted, and I couldn't face the discussion (here) so I dropped it. Sarah ^(talk) 21:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support #2 or #3 - I'm coming kind of late to this, but it seems clear that this could help to (a) address a long-time problem, the consequences of which have become ever more public and a key element in discourse about Wikipedia (not unjustly, but unfortunately), and (b) contribute to a more welcoming editing environment. I don't understand the instruction creep oppose argument here ("harassment is harassment"). The problem with instruction creep is that it can make rules too complex/confusing and effectively removes gray areas for which it may be better to rely on editors' judgment. I don't think this would necessarily make the policy harder to understand and reject the idea that there is a useful gray area that would be necessarily be marginalized. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposal is a strange one. I haven't seen any evidence that there exist special features to sexual harassment which are not adequately handled by the current policies WP:HARASS and WP:CIVIL. If someone can show me this, I could change my mind. From a skim of the discussion, nothing jumps out at me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 or 2 in that order. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is a place that is unable to attract and retain women in anything approaching reasonable numbers, and especially given that we're hemorrhaging editors in general, any change that can make it less uninviting is a no-brainer. Low-hanging fruit, like this one, should be grabbed immediately. Out in the real world it's well understood that much of the efficacy of policies like the proposed ones are in public relations and perception: they send a message that we want this to be welcoming space for women and we're serious about keeping it that way.
  

On the flip side, should something so simple as this be rejected after it's proposed, it would send a PR message of its own that certainly isn't going to paint Wikipedia in a positive light.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3, then 2, per Keilana. I mean, holy fucking shit, why would you oppose a sexual harassment policy? Sceptre ^(talk) 10:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support either 2 or 3. Yes in an ideal world this would be redundant...but it isn't an ideal world and some things just need spelling out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Not needed. Existing policies are sufficient. I do not care personally whether Wikipedia is 10 percent women or 90 percent and rarely notice or care about an editor's stated gender. Content is key. Also concerned that in the real world, such policies have been used in a way to create an uneven playing field against anyone accused under such policies. The community, in egregious cases, can take care of it with a ban. I was particularly struck by Godsy's thoughtful oppose. It isn't even a solution waiting for proper use, it simply isn't a solution, and just will be a source of more contention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 as these are distinct forms of harassment which I believe require distinct policies. I believe this would enable Wikipedia to have a safer, and more civilized editing environment in general thorugh specific problems being addressed. --Rubbish computer 00:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, since this isn't moving, I'll comment here. The original RFC is just a poll measuring support. The draft below is jumping the gun a bit... we don't even know what people think we need or how they envision this policy change.

For what it's worth, I think we either need:

1. a non-discrimination policy that covers forms of harassment
2. need to update the harassment policy to explicitly include status/identity harassment.

Personally, I'd prefer to see #1 as it's wider and the more common approach taken by other website (and preferably in the Terms of Use like most other sites). But since we're talking about it on HARASS, we can only discuss HARASS directly (again, this is why VPP is better).

While sexual harassment is the impetus for this discussion, there is no reason to not include other statuses/identities. From what I can tell, this typically includes things like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, DNA, etc. While HARASS is a general policy covering all types of harassment, there is a qualitative difference between an obnoxious spammer or sockpuppet and a user who makes insults and threats based on a person's gender, race, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree and I'm more or less neutral on the precise details of where the policy lives. Does it need to be a separate page or a clarification and bullet point in existing policy? I don't think it matters much. The key element is that insults based on gender do happen on Wikipedia, and do have extremely and sadly misguided defenders, and it is important to put our foot down about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Jimbo Wales and I agree. Part of me honestly wishes the Terms of Use could just be updated to reflect the norm of other large sites, but like you said location of the policy doesn't matter as much as it's existence somewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both posters above. Have updated the existing Wikipedia:Sexual harassment policy page to reflect the current state of discussion here. --Djembayz (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick but important clarification ... the Non discrimination policy does not apply to user interactions. It's an internal WMF policy that controls how staff and contractors interact with editors, ie it prohibits staff and contractors from discriminating. This becomes much clearer when you read the second sentence. It would be a very good thing if it specifically applied to users here too. To achieve this, a slight recast of the relevant text is needed for adoption on the English Wikipedia as a local policy.

From: WMF policy wording The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.

to: Discrimination against any editor on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristic, is prohibited.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree with the intention of this anti-discrimination policy, I think it should perhaps be reformulated to take account of the peculiarities of Wikimedia and experience in the "real world". The unqualified term "discrimination" should only be used to refer to any different treatment of people based on a particular criterion (such as ethnic origin) without any exceptions or excuses. Wikimedia needs a different term, and slightly diifferent rules, where current laws or generally accepted social conventions normally permit (or even require) exceptions to such a prohibition. Using the same term when wide exceptions are permitted weakens the force of the prohibition where exceptions are not permitted. --Boson (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I count about 18 Supports and 6 opposes and there's a pretty obvious leniency to something like the below, which includes sex among other personal characteristics like race, etc. If no one objects, I'm going to go ahead and move it into policy-space, where any bold ongoing refinement is naturally still allowed. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I think you should wait, or we should change the draft to make it only about sexual harassment, which is what people are supporting. Extending it to other forms of harassment complicates things. Sarah ^(talk) 21:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, Respectfully, I agree with Sarah that a move to Wikipedia policy is hasty. The section has not even been open 3 days. Additionally, w.r.t the RfC, the question asked is should we have a policy, not should we have this policy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the overly bureaucratic approach of doing multiple RFCs is that we will end up with nothing once editors have lost interest, there's a lack of consensus on something or only a small group of editors demonstrate persistence. We are allowed to improve policies through bold editing and if it turns out the exact wording of the draft is not supported in some specific way, it can be edited at any time. Part of the idea of an openly editable Wiki is to allow flexible, rapid, spontaneous, incremental improvement, as oppose to putting together multiple proposals and complex voting rounds that we don't have the structure or commitment (as volunteers) to support. CorporateM (Talk) 07:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still mulling over my position on the rfc but I wanted to comment on this specific wording. I'm not sure we can say legally protected characteristic because the characteristics that are protected are nation-dependent. I understand this phrasing is there as a catchall in case other types of discrimination come up I think it would be better, if something like this were adopted, to say something like legally protected characteristics in any jurisdiction. Then this policy need not be dependent on one nation's laws. Ca2james (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that trying to draft policy changes on the fly is premature, as is vote-counting while the discussion is still running. The current tally looks nothing like "18 supports and 6 opposes". Let the closer do the analysis, which won't be based on a head-count anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Based on my comments and comments by others, I've added a 3rd option to the RfC to include identity-based harassment generally, including sexual harassment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Good plan. (I have a quibble with it, but it might actually be part of what emerges with consensus for all we know. Good to have the option there.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Re BoboMeowCat and other GGTF references: Just for the record, the ArbCom GGTF case did not find hounding as a fact, but two-way battleground behauvior. Based on the ArbCom cases, it has to be taken into account that some disruptive editors will use claims of sexual harassment as a get-out-of-jail-free card like Carolmooredc (see FoF again), claiming institutionalized harassment by "gang bangers" [6] despite using language like "a bunch of 15-25 year olds who've never gotten laid and may never get laid" herself [7]. Those people are no heroes or victims, and should not serve as examples here. --Pudeo' 21:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pudeo, my comment was about what I witnessed as a member of GGTF, not specifically about what arb-com found. Here's a small sample: Sitush followed Carolmooredc to GGTF to engage in off-topic criticism of Carol, despite no group members voicing any problem with Carol's contributions there. This was Sitush's first post there [[8]], while Carol had been participating positively and on topic in relation to the gender gap for some time. SPECIFICO joined in, not to discuss the gender gap or anything, but to defend off-topic jibes at Carol [9]. Things sort of spiraled down hill from there. It seems this is the sort of "ganging up" that Carolmooredc may have been referring to with the "gangbangers" comment. In Washington DC and in other urban areas in the US, "gangbangers" is a reference to a group of thugs, like a street gang, not a reference to sexual activity. Scalhotrod popped in immediately after Lightbreather joined, prompting LB to say she didn't feel safe there.[10],[11]. There's plenty more of this nature, if anyone cares to read through the depressing archives of that group.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is also worth bearing intersectionality in mind in all of this as well. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• The WMF anti-discrimination policy is an internal legal document about employee/contractor relations. "You can be fired if you do this stuff on the job." It doesn't apply to the editors. Something conceptually like it could be integrated into user behavioral policies or terms of service, but it can't simply be tacked onto the WMF employment policy. It's odd to me that there's even any confusion about this. It's the same as confusing internal employee conduct policies at Facebook, Inc., with user terms of service about not posting racial slurs on facebook.com profiles and feeds; it's a conceptually totally different category, applicable to different parties, even if the topics of the prohibitions (ethnicity, gender, etc.) are the same. The WMF A-D policy is not a hammer, and not all forms of hostile-environment creation, in different contexts, are nails that can be hit with it.

  There's also confusion here about the fact that "discrimination" and "harassment" aren't synonyms. "Discrimination" in such a context has a specific meaning, and it involves a power imbalance between the discriminator and the one being discriminated against. That doesn't exist among the user base, except between admins and non-admins. It takes no harassment at all to discriminate (it can be a one-time action and motivated by the actor's position on some issue or fact rather than on the "recipient" personally), nor does harassment require discrimination (you can harass without having a power edge over someone, even having less power than them). That said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a non-discrimination policy as part of the "admin package": "You may not use admin tools to discriminate against other users, by blocking, by closing discussions, or taking other admin-level actions, on a discriminatory basis". It's doubtful that it happens all that much, but also certain that it does happen. It will probably happen more, not less, over time, as various WP:FACTIONs work hard to get "pet" admins in place to back them up in various "culture wars" (WP:ARBAA2, etc.). These large-scale and increasingly organized PoV-pushing campaigns are a really serious issue (not to imply that ethnic and nationality-based discrimination is more serious than gender-based; it's just a larger-scale one, with more heads on the hydra).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Question for those opposing

Question for those opposing - do you support a more active enforcement of HARASS and CIVIL then? As some arbs have noted, the status quo is allowing an unacceptable level of harassment, especially sexual harassment (see the GGTF, Gamergate, and Lightbreather cases for example). In Lightbreather's case, the decision urges the community to address this issue (not specifically with a policy update though). In the past complaints have been met with replies amounting to "grow a thick skin" and CIVIL has been sidelined. So what are we to do the current polices don't work and you oppose changes to them? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement, yes. I can't imagine creating more words is going to change anything. Attitudes on enforcement need to change.--v/r - TP 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@TParis: I'm honestly happy to hear you say that and please know I'm not holding this against you, but you were one of the ones who used the "thin skinned" language last year when referring to Corbett and Carolmooredc (link). I understand if you feel/felt it was not major enough to warrant attention, but the subsequent arb case makes me think it really did warrant attention. Lightbreather's case had harassment and incivility that ranged from similar "minor" (that's how it started) but constant thing to much much more severe. So, do we finally start addressing the minor incivility, disruption, and harassment that is creating a toxic environment? I'm curious how you view this now in retrospect given the intervening events. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The thin skinned comment stands. I'm not going to go extreme to either side on this. This project has a lot of people who overreact and a lot of people who underreact. I am advocating for an appropriate response.--v/r - TP 03:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Was it not the constant minor incivility that lead in part to the GGTF case? How are we going to change anything if we don't address part of the root cause? To me, addressing disruptive editors who create hostile environments would be an "appropriate response". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it was the constant hounding, the veiled incivility, and the belittling. The hardest part of this is going to be finding a hard line that distinguishes incivility and discrimination from contrasting ideas and opinions. How are you going to prevent a chilling effect? How are you going to prevent stifling discussion? How are you going to avoid shifting the balance of power offbalance in the opposite direction? Many folks have asked those questions and very few have the answers. I certainly don't - and won't pretend to. I don't know what an appropriate response is. I don't know what overreactions and undereactions are. I know when I feel there is something unfair about. But I can't imagine a hard rule. I can only suggest that open communication is needed and critical eyes on all participants. Everyone needs to go into such a discussion with the attitude of understanding (from all parties) instead of an attitude of winning. And, frankly, I don't think that's possible on Wikipedia. And, to be frank again, I don't think you're the person to lead it. You've already decided what your answer is and I think you'll be determined that Wikipedia lives up to your expectations. I think we need someone open-minded with an interest in a successful project and a fair environment to lead such an effort. That's not me, that's not you.--v/r - TP 22:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well put TParis. And I especially agree with, "Everyone needs to go into such a discussion with the attitude of understanding (from all parties) instead of an attitude of winning. And, frankly, I don't think that's possible on Wikipedia.". And to be honest, I don't want to lead this. I'm just trying to get momentum behind this so the community can at least address it. Until recently, it's just been allowed to fester unaddressed with the final result being arb cases. Regardless of the outcome here, I think this issue will be more salient to editors and people will be more proactive in addressing it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

+1.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not support more "active" enforcement, just more competent enforcement. That also often means allowing minor acts of incivility or singular moderately uncivil remarks. Should "active enforcement" lead to someone getting blocked for calling someone "little boy" then I do not support that. Even in severe cases of incivility there should be other factors considered. All too often I have seen an editor getting the harsher end of the stick for a severe action, while many little actions that built up to it and provoked it are unaddressed. Mind you, a number of these "severe actions" would probably fall afoul of the current draft being prepared. We need admins to recognize that just because someone is yelling the loudest or talking the harshest, does not mean they are the one whose behavior needs correcting or at least are not the only one who needs correcting. You push people enough and you can get them to react pretty much however you want.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Then how do we deal with editors who are constantly uncivil? I agree that saying "little boy" would not be a blockable offense, but if someone always called all editors on WP:MILHIST "little boy" or "buffoons" (just as an example), then that needs to be addressed, right? Currently, it's not being addressed. People are missing the patterns of behavior and only focusing on the large events. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That depends on context. "Little boy" could also be used as a term of endearment akin to calling everyone "bud" even if you just met them. It could also be simply seen as a harmless jab not worth the trouble. At least part of the judgment should be whether the comment itself is extreme and, if not, if it is being used in such a repetitive fashion towards people who dislike it that it can only be for the sake of annoying them. Honestly, I don't think we really need a change to policy, let alone a new policy, to cover that sort of situation as it already falls within the scope of existing policy. Advocating an even more restrictive policy that is open to broader interpretations that could ultimately include "offensive" opinions simply because enforcement is not currently as good for things violating existing policy is just asking for trouble.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd support "more competent enforcement" for sure, and probably "more active enforcement". I believe that ArbCom, and the community generally, feel that there are not just cases where enforcement decisions have been wrong (often too lenient, or rejecting the claims when they should have not), but also a general lack of enforcement at all (harassment goes entirely unaddressed). They're related but not entirely distinct concerns. I've raised a third, of one-sided enforcement, under which verbal attacks against members of a class are seen as permissible or not worth addressing simply because the class is numerically greater on WP. All of this can be addressed under the umbrella term "more competent enforcement", though, if it's conceived fairly broadly.

I agree with EvergreenFir that the central problem that enforcement has not dealt with is "a hostile environment" engendered (no pun intended) by "constant minor incivility". I agree with some of the proposal respondents that the proximal cause of this is the wording of this policy, in conjunction with that at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. But it's important to keep in mind that "a hostile environment" can be a very localized thing, and isn't always hostile in the direction many people are raising concerns about here. A second, but nearly central, concern I have is not allowing any change to the policy – aiming to address minor incivility that leads to perception of a hostile environment that, in the aggregate, can feel like harassment – be easily WP:GAMEable to generate insta-sanctions against anyone for posts that someone is spinning out of context to make them seem incivil or gender/race/whatever-pointed when they are not. Everyone ultimately owns their own emotions, and other editors cannot be made to "pay" for overreactions, especially if the comments being objected to are about the content not about the editor having the reaction.

PS: Making the policies better doesn't necessarily entail "more words", just better ones, in the right places. (But the we-don't-need-more-verbiage concern is part of why I oppose option 3 in the proposal. We don't need to enumerate every kind of harassment when we're prohibiting all harassment.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The folks at the Ada Initiative agree that it's quite excruciating to enumerate every type of unacceptable conduct-- but here's why they say it is important:

"In our experience at the Ada Initiative, getting specific about what’s not okay is both the most effective and the most cringe-inducing part of writing a code of conduct. Nobody wants to be “negative” – but it’s exactly what you need to make potential victims of harassment feel confident and safe in joining the community and in reporting violations. If I, as a new participant, don’t know whether the people enforcing the code of conduct think unwelcome sexual advances over IRC are considered okay, I’m not going to take the risk of reporting them and getting scolded for being “thin-skinned.” Instead, I’m just going to leave and find a project where I can work on my software in peace."

Of course, getting specific about what's acceptable and what's not is not the whole story-- it's the first step towards defining and authorizing what constitutes effective enforcement. However, without this initial step of getting specific, there is no clear metric for evaluating success or failure of existing efforts, or prioritizing enforcement efforts. --Djembayz (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone mentioning the Ada Initiative in this sort of context needs to note that it is a pressure group and a home-from-home for a certain type of (former) WMF employee. Their opinions are scarcely independent and the damage that was done to Wikipedia by the misguided equality campaigning initiatives of, say, Sue Gardner has been commented on by reports that are really independent. Notably, a report concerning totally disorganised and ill-conceived schemes to bring WP to the masses of India as a means of addressing systemic bias. Just being in a group of people with influential connections does not legitimise an opinion. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As you point out, so far, neither Ada nor WMF have been able to create a comprehensive big picture formula that works for online equality issues (especially in unmoderated spaces). Two past frameworks for equality initiatives that have worked in the offline world are the civil rights movement, and the anti-harassment/non discrimination policies and procedures which are standard in the HR departments serving businesses, governments, international organizations, and NGOs. The en:Wikipedia community as a whole appears to be willing to examine the issues, and has started in on the basic discussions that people new to the field of HR and diversity need to conduct. Many have pointed out that poor conduct online towards other editors is already covered under existing policies, and that existing enforcement mechanisms don't appear to be working.

Some of the commenters below are starting to work towards consensus regarding improved enforcement, such as the proposal by Otr500 for more extensive use of templates. Other commenters such as WhatamIdoing are seeking to establish consensus regarding enforcement thresholds for racism.

It would be beneficial for everyone working on the site if more consensus with regards to effective enforcement was reached. --Djembayz (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You [[two have said that you don't think that an editor should be blocked for calling an African-American man a "boy". There's a long and ugly Jim Crow history of calling African-American men "boys" – a long and ugly history of white bigots addressing even quite elderly black men with language like "Get out of here, boy". A quick trip to your favorite search engine will find you a lot of sources on the subject, but try this for a quick and easy op-ed, or this for a little legal history or this for another political scene.

Are you really okay with having that around here? If someone shows up on Wikipedia, has been directly informed that his mode of address is offensive on racial grounds, and he still keeps doing it, then what do you think should happen? Just keep "warning" and "educating" the racist until we're all blue in the face? Wait until his targets get so disgusted with the situation that they quit? Or would you maybe support blocking the offender for persistent racial harassment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you are quick to deem someone a racist for calling someone "boy" is exactly what I am talking about. Should we expect the Spanish Inquisition any time an editor says "you people" to an editor who may be of Black African descent? I don't deny that there is a history of referring to someone as "boy" in a racial sense, but there is also a history of referring to any male as a "boy" when you believe said male is misbehaving or not using their thinker correctly. Were we to go down the route of aggressively policing everyone's "microaggressions" we would probably find the drama boards filling up with endless hostility centering on guesswork about what this or that person really meant and if it is really worth our time. Right now the current draft for a special "indentity-based harassment" section seems to invite that catastrophic approach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

+1mil. There's a strong "microagressions" policing undercurrent to this entire exercise. Just because someone has disclosed something doesn't mean everyone noticed. I rarely read other editors' userpages to find out their backgrounds, and I don't usually remember any details from them a day later. So it's dangerous to allow policing of wording choices, absent a clear pattern of incivility to particular groups.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this very "any microaggression I think I can perceive is reason enough call out another editor for sexism" WP:GAMING plan is happening right now on my very own talk page! Wow. Great timing. Same editor pulled a similar attempt to hold me responsible for their own wild inferences a month or two ago, too. I.e., people prone to this approach will continue to use it, and will be over-"empowered" to attack other editors on false bases by a policy change such as is being contemplated here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I sort of like Whatamidoing's idea. A 'one and done' rule. If you make a discriminatory comment, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt the first time that you were just ignorant of the meaning of the comment. Once educated, the behavior needs to stop. No more good faith after that.--v/r - TP 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. But who get to define that it's "discriminatory"? In what context and to whom? Does it have to be exactly the same comment? Use the same word? Use the same construction but a different word? Be directed to the same party? Be directed to the same class of parties? Be directed to a party at all? Insert 20 more questions. Being the Language Police isn't WP's job. There must be some other way to address the issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is at least one other way to address the situation (though I don't know if people here would like it any better than the process of working out very specific rules for what is and is not acceptable.) Here is what the diversity professional I talked to told me about how to deal with the problems of diversity and harassment on your organization's website:

1. You can't have volunteers moderate a website. It doesn't work.
2. You designate paid moderators you trust, and give them broad general outlines of any additional protections your organization wishes to extend beyond non-discrimination towards protected classes under law, such as specifying other protected groups or other types of unacceptable postings.
3. The moderators are given full discretion to delete user postings as they see fit, according to what they feel is necessary to keep the organization in compliance with laws and its internal policies.
4. The moderators' decisions are final, and there is no appeal.

Although there seems to be much concern that this approach is "not scalable," it seems to me that this vigorous approach to moderation could be implemented in the administrative sections of the website, such as the noticeboards, requests for comment, and talk pages of concern, any time the WMF were so inclined. And it may come to this, if self-regulation continues to flounder as it is doing now, especially in respect to concerns about sexual harassment and the concerns of women.

There are all sorts of potentially unpleasant situations that we would really rather avoid that could make this foot-dragging on cleaning up our act look really, really bad. Wouldn't it be preferable to get out ahead of the situation somehow instead of acting like what we are facing with the "gender gap" and with harassment is simply a problem of "media narratives?" --Djembayz (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In the incident I described below, the offending editor was directly informed, by a reply from the victim, that he was an African-American man and that it was not appropriate to call any African-American man a "boy" because of the racist history of that use. You don't have to be "language police" to insist that the offender stop after that point.

Anybody can make an honest mistake, and I'd like to leave room for that. However, only an unrepentant bigot or an absolute zero-WP:COMPETENCE idiot is going to persist in making that mistake after being directly and personally informed that his choice of language is offensive. We can give people the benefit of the doubt the first time (and maybe even the second) without giving them the benefit of the doubt a dozen or more times. As we say in wikijargon, AGF is not a suicide pact.

As for wishing for "some other way to address the issue", there are only two ways to address the issue of offensive language being directed at editors: Either we tell offenders to stop it, or we tell victims that their contributions aren't worth the effort of us making offenders stop it. The first is usually preferably and preferably achieved using words, but we sometimes communicate with a block button if the offender truly insists that a verbal warning is an insufficient educational tool. The second is usually achieved with the silent sound of inaction, but it is unfortunately also achieved with public statements that you should put up with offensive language because we are not the language police, that thin-skinned people never have anything useful to contribute to the encyclopedia, or that my two friends down at the bar think that it's just fine to use <insert profanity> and so therefore all of my entire country or culture thinks it's no big deal. I am sad about inaction, but I am dismayed by victims being told that their authentic reaction to an insult is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

People always make derisive comments about "thick skin" in these discussions, but there is definitely a strong argument against reacting to every slight with outrage or endless belaboring of the point. I recall this rather silly quiz on Clickhole that was basically just a series of vague inexplicably hostile questions from some random angry guy that you would answer with similarly vague responses that could be calm, confused, or offended. Were you to go with the most offended responses then it would basically end with the guy starting a brawl, whereas if you went with the calmer or more confused responses, his anger would abate and you would become pals. That may seem to be a rather simplistic way of looking at it, but I have found that stirring up a fuss over every perceived slight is a pretty good way to make things worse rather than better.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and Americans often tell cancer patients that they need to be "brave" or the cancer will kill them. (It dates back to a particularly idiotic psychotherapy system around 1970.) It turns out that ordering people to have certain emotions doesn't work very well in practice. If someone is genuinely upset, then it's useless to tell them to have a thick skin. We can model the ideal. However, the ideal includes helping people resolve problems that genuinely upset them, even if the same thing would not genuinely upset me. Saying "Grow a thicker skin so I can keep calling you <sexist term> without that making you want to quit Wikipedia" isn't part of the ideal. Saying "If your language skills are so seriously impaired that you can't figure out how to write a paragraph without using <sexist term>, after being directly asked to do so, then you may not be WP:COMPETENT to write an encyclopedia" might be.

And in the spirit of my question for Evergreen below: If an editor addresses (probably unwittingly) a term that is highly offensive to another editor, and is told to stop it, then do you think that the offending editor should stop it? Or is it okay for him to keep being knowingly offensive? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: My reading comprehension isn't the greatest, but nowhere did anyone say anything about calling a Black person "boy". I assure you I'm well aware of the meaning of that words when said to Black folks in the US. TDA's comment was, from what I can tell, about small insults (in this case, to someone's masculinity). And for what it's worth, racism (unlike sexism) is generally not tolerated on Wikipedia, at least not when directed at editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you must not have finished reading the page, because I specifically discussed that as an actual incident that I witnessed on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: nowhere on this page did anyone but you say anything about calling a Black person "boy". Your statement that You two have said that you don't think that an editor should be blocked for calling an African-American man a "boy" is false and attempting to twist words. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you were unaware that this story about a racist attack is why TDA used that as an example, then I will ask your opinion: In your opinion, if an editor addressed another person as a "boy", and an editor informs the offender that the target is an African-American man (using unmistakable words, like "I am an African-American man") and that addressing African-American men as "boys" is highly offensive and racist behavior and directly asks the offender to stop, then is it okay for the first editor to keep calling him a boy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please see my reasons to oppose above. All harassment should be considered serious without bias. An admin is an editor that has taken on an added "job" if you will. In that capacity they have to be held to a higher standard because their opinion can and does matter. If an admin chooses to weigh in on something as serious as harassment, or any instance concerning policy, they "must" do so according to policies and guidelines that reflect consensus. If a person robs a bank and kills someone with a gun they face multiple charges of robbery and murder. The gun would likely be an enhancement unless they had prior felony charges which would bring a felon in possession of a firearm charge.

On Wikipedia we have policies and guidelines for a reason. To treat the severity of all transgressions as equal is a problem but you have to remember that admins usually do not want to cross any lines. Without a "seriousness" or "egregious" enhancement specification then action is actually limited to repeated offenses. Look at the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, specifically concerning protection that uses the wording "persistent personal attacks", and Disruption includes gross incivility and harassment. The duration depends on "the severity of the behavior" and "whether the user has engaged in that behavior before".

• If a true goal is to make Wikipedia a "safe" place for all editors then do start with the admins. Allow a 24 hour block for egregious conduct violations, of course not as punishment but preemptive protection, for serious violations, "especially" if an editor is not new. These can be reviewed by WP:ArbCom and actually should be. There are Temporary circumstances blocks and unblocks so this can not be too complicated. A 24 hour block could (possibly?) be followed by a {{2nd chance}} template, or the likes that included wording for an automatic 24 hour unblocking.

At this point one editor can say horribly hurtful things to another editor, that very likely could have immediate ramifications to that editor, but if it is a one time thing, and that editor does not have a "history" of this, then all is good with a warning. This is why a WP:No personal attacks policy would actually be more important than WP:Harassment. The word "harassment" is inherently described as characteristically repetitive.

A problem is that the consequences of personal attacks are hindered by the wording In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption.", which is defined as "Death threats and issues of similar severity...". Anything "lesser": "If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow.". If "we" want to improve Wikipedia then "we" have to fix the problem.

Any concern of what would then be recorded in the block log can be dealt with by not recording a first temporary protection block. I am not a programmer but this is 2015 so I am sure there could be found a work-around solution, that would have consensus, that would make Wikipedia a "safe place" for all editors. Remember, anyone who sees abusive uncivil conduct or personal attacks may get involved and realize that Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than administrators only.

"IF" any form of immediate blocking is some taboo on Wikipedia then I have already given the solution, with the added policy content, and all editors (except those on some mission) should be placated that we are now "politically" correct. Those on a mission should consider the above. Otr500 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not read the whole discussion, but as I say very clearly in my oppose reasoning, I see no evidence that WP:HARASS and WP:CIVIL are not doing their job. Gamergate also has its own DS regime, which is frequently applied. If someone can give me evidence that they are not doing their job, I can answer this question intelligently. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft

My first take at a possible draft below CorporateM (Talk) 22:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a draft. Please edit me!

The draft has been moved to Wikipedia:Harassment/draft, where it will be easier to see an edit-history.

Log of edits. Please add description of your edits to the draft here.

copyedited (diff) Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC) copyedited (diff) Sarah (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Changing basis of race, ... to basis of identity or status, such as race, .... Also adding serial commas in last paragraph. Rm hyphen from "un-involved". (diff) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC) restored "all genders" and "severe or pervasive," as these are important, and the part about admins keeping unwanted contact to the minimum necessary. (diff) Sarah (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Changing "racist or sexist language" to "using derogatory or abusive language based on race or gender" based on Chillum's comments below. Use of "manhole" has been argued to be sexist because it's androcentric and exclusionary, but would not be considered harassment. Also serial comma again. (diff) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) remove redundancy from first sentence. "repeatedly engaging in unwanted contact" and "making offensive comments about a group of people with whom an editor identifies" removed. "repeatedly making unwelcome sexual advances or comments" now covers the former (contact wasn't good wording). The latter is too ambiguous. For example, a person who identifies as an avid rock music fan could claim harassment if someone said they didn't care for the music's style or the type of personalities of the average rock star (or more simply they thought the music was bad). occurrences of contact changed to a better description copyedit and other small changes.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Removed "explicitly graphic stories" - I don't think this is an on-wiki concern. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

Hello. I made a dedicated page here: WP:Sexual_harassment. From my experience this is the best way to foster collaboration and discussion. --ScWizard (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Preempting an ongoing discussion is seldom likely to foster collaboration in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Returning to the actual topic of this thread, I would support wording on the lines of CorporateM's above proposal being added to the existing policy - it makes clear that harassment may take many forms, and avoids any unnecessary and divisive suggestions that any one form of harassment is necessarily 'worse' than another. The community might however consider adding wording to the effect that admins and/or ArbCom will have full community approval for appropriate sanctions where harassment occurs - and that the community expects serious sanctions to be imposed in such cases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few more edits on top of @Smallbones:' edits and tried to incorporate what @AndyTheGrump: was saying. There's a few nagging things I'm hoping someone smarter than me can figure out:

• A good title. Discrimination isn't quite right, because it's not about giving preferential treatment to certain groups of people. Not sure what to call it.
• The right language. Quite a few people make "offensive comments" about "a group of people" like trolls, vandals, POV pushers, etc. that an editor could identify with, but that's not quite what we're talking about here. Needs some better wording.
• We should never assume that because someone feels as though they were harassed, that they were actually. Someone accused me of discrimination not that long ago, just because I turned down their AFC submission. In law they have a standard of whether a reasonable disinterested party would consider it harassment, which I think is a good standard here.

CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head - we don't have a good definition of what the issue is, what constitutes a part of the issue, and what doesn't. We know there are things we don't like. Some people think it is obvious and just want to call it al "harassment". Some others want to break out "Identity harassment". Still others want to break this down into, specifically, sexual harassment, gender harassment, racial harassment etc..

To me the distinguished feature of identity harassment that makes it particularly nasty is the oblique nature. For example mentioning "man flu" attacks a whole gender, and by inclusion, any men in the discussion. There is little rational defence against these types of discourse, since the substantive message is one of contempt for the group.

I disagree that it is OK to make "offensive comments about trolls, vandals, POV pushers, etc.". There is no need, one of our best contributors was a vandal, otherwise they were a great editor. Conflict over insults would not have improved the situation.

Your third point is very telling: many people say "if you feel harassed you are", the law does not support them. However we are neither a legal institution nor a touchy-feely self help group. (But somewhere in between?) It is quite evident that we need to be able to revert vandalism, correct spellings, etc. without being accused of harassment. However if we have a sustained relationship with another editor it behooves us to listen to what they tell us about how we communicate. It is also wise to pass the torch where we can, if things become to tense.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

• For what it's worth it may be good to look at the CoCs around technical communities or conferences; there's been a lot of work over the last few years coming up with standardised ways of handling and discussing this. The jQuery Foundation's current discussion about policies around issues of discrimination and harassment (it lives here: COI declaration, I commented on it) looks pretty good, for example. Many are going to be more wide-ranging than just sexual discrimination or harassment but there are some good ideas. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• "making offensive comments about a group of people with whom an editor identifies" is the game-able bit. For example I know some of our editors identify as British. Its an undeniable historical fact that the British have committed genocide at least twice. What do we do if a British person finds that statement offensive?©Geni (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Slimvirgin: It's a minor nit-pick item, but I have a hangup about not allowing "sexist language", because sexist language is ubiquitous and it's embedded in established language standards. "Mankind" is sexist language, but using it is not harassment. CorporateM (Talk) 16:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I share your reservations, because "sexist" (when describing language) is ambigous; it can be interpreted to include anything that is not "gender-inclusive" or "non-sexist".--Boson (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I have been told that phrases like "man-hole" and "unmanned" are sexist. What is considered sexist ranges from what any reasonable person would consider offensive to some level of Orwellian Newspeak. Chillum 20:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Chillum: Those terms would be covered under WP:GNL. They are considered sexist in that they assume men are the default (related to Sandra Bem's idea of androcentrism). They are not considered derogatory, just exclusionary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Essays are great and all but my point is that sometimes what is considered sexist is unreasonable. Chillum 20:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: Let's focus on abusively sexist language or derogatory language then. I don't think many would argue that use of "manhole" would qualify as harassment. I edited the draft to address this concern (diff). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So in consequence the proposed section would "abusively sexist language or derogatory language is forbidden"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

• Suggest making sure the draft does not restrict itself. I'll edit draft momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm very late to this discussion, but policing "sexist" language seems like an unnecessary can of worms since we're getting away from harassment into political opinions about language. If an editor happens to say something sexist (as interpreted by the recipient), that is less important than "abusive". To whit, I'm far more concerned about abusive language, whether or not it's sexist.Mattnad (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we're doing here. We have an RfC about whether to have a sexual-harassment policy, but we're writing a draft that's much broader than that. I think we should stick to sexual harassment. Sarah ^(talk) 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• On the contrary I think that terms like abusive, derogatory, and harassment strike far more at the heart of the matter than sexual. Are we banning sexuality or are we banning reprehensible treatment of one human by another? Chillum 21:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sexual harassment needn't be directly sexual. It's harassment of someone as a result of their sex or gender. Gender-based insults count as sexual harassment, for example. Sarah ^(talk) 21:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• There's a useful page here. Sarah ^(talk) 21:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, of course (and I hope no one here actually thinks it means "posts about sex"!), but it's not what Chillum's point is. It's the abusive, derogatory, or harassing nature of the post that's the central problem, not the gender-based topic of it. It's equally wrong if its' ethnicity- or disability-based, or whatever. There certainly may be a secondary problem, the one I think you're trying to address here and elsewhere, that it's may be more common (or less commonly dealt with) if it's gender-based, but I'm not sure we have proof of this. I see ethnicity- and nationality-based harassment much more frequently that gender-based. Isn't the problem just poor enforcement against harassment, period?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Focussing on persistent derogatory and abusive behaviour sounds good to me. Gender-specific language may be undesirable, but it is not per se harassment. And even if there should be a consensus to deal with harassment based on gender separately, we should still deal with other forms of harassment in the same way and at the same time. We should keep in mind what people have, in the past, been persecuted and killed for. And, whatever we are concentrating on at the moment, we should take care not to give undue weight to one particular cause, especially a cause that we may ourselves be associated with. There is a fine line between even-handed ethical responsibility and political advocacy for individual groups. --Boson (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, but share the concerns of many here that derogatory gender-based language, when it falls short of harassment, is still an actual issue. There's a level of lingering, tacit societal approval of it that's not present as widely for some other categories of verbal jackassery. I don't see any consensus here (though one might still arise) that addressing this is a {{Policy}} page matter even if it might be a WP:POLICY matter in the broadest sense. It might be entirely reasonable to have an essay on this, and I expect that WP:Sexual harassment will produce one, no matter the outcome of the discussion here. It might be enough to address the issue. If not, elevating elements of it [in]to a behavioral guideline might do the trick.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment if someone can demonstrate to me that such a section will be a net benefit by decreasing harassment on-wiki I will support it. I will even go further and support a trial, to be accompanied by measurement to see if it does decrease harassment.

I would also welcome any serious investigation into harassment based on sexuality, gender, race or ethnicicty, religion, age, competence, nationality, etc..

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

• I didn't want to remove this without discussion in case someone can think of an example of it happening, but do we need "repeatedly making unwelcome sexual advances ...". This looks to me as if it has been copied from a policy for situations where there is physical contact, rather than an online venue in open view. "Sexual comments" is also a bit odd, unless we can replace "comments" with something more specific. In a different environment, I would imagine that it is intended to cover things like comments about the speaker's or listener's primary or secondary sexual attributes, but does this happen on Wikipedia? I can't think of any real examples of what it might be meant to cover in a Wikipedia environment, other than derogatory comments and abuse (which have already been mentioned)? --Boson (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we perhaps need to think about how this policy intersects with wiki meetups and the like? GoldenRing (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think any policy for meetups should be kept separate, and we probably have no authority to define such a policy. Such a policy would apply to participants and organizers rather than editors, and we might have to consider the location. In one sense a meetup is more like a workplace situation, in that there is physical contact. On the other hand (with certain exceptions) it is not normally considered appropriate for employers to regulate what their employees do in their own time. --Boson (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Different meet-ups have different organisers. None are organised under the auspices of "the community", therefore we should not consider it here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
        
  • Boson, I'm glad that you haven't encountered inappropriate sexual comments on wiki. Extreme cases usually get oversighted as soon as they're discovered. I've seen (and reported) a few instances and heard about others. For example, I've reported user pages were re-written to say that the attacked editor engages in specific sexual practices, usually emphasizing practices that are illegal, immoral, and/or particularly disgusting. I've even had admins tell me that vandalism that implied that the victim supported pedophilia wasn't actually bad enough to justify revdel!
    As for your concerns about "making unwelcome sexual advances" online, I hear that there's this thing called sexting. Even editors who avoid the hundreds of in-person meetups each year will often make contact in e-mail, so it's not all "out in the open". Nobody should be expected to put up with unwanted sexual requests or comments – using the broadest possible definition of "comment", as in "any form of communication that the offender directs towards the victim". It doesn't matter if the "comment" is an apparently benign request for editors to upload photos of their feet (from someone with a foot fetish), or filling someone's inbox with crotch shots, or the sexist practice of addressing women by terms of endearment rather than their names. Editors who are here to write an encyclopedia should not have to put up with any of that, and especially not after they have objected to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don' think I actually said that I hadn't encountered inappropriate sexual comments on wiki. Indeed I have occasionally seen and reverted a number of edits of a sexual nature, usually to articles, most often isolated vandalism of the sort I would associate with very young teenagers whose brains are being rewired while online (typically: "Joe Sample <engages in sexual practice> "Fred Example likes <noun related to sex>. I was referring to the proposed text "making repeated sexual advances or comments", obviously taken from a workplace context, where I think something different would normally be understood. As I said '"sexual comments'" is ... a bit odd, unless we can replace "comments" with something more specific'. I can imagine edits to a user page of the type you mention being part of a "campaign" of sexual harassment, though I don't recall personally having seen anything similar.

Another issue is: when such "comments" (I would prefer a different word) amount to harassment. Not all use or mention of a sex-related word is harassment. To me, harassment involves several elements, including something like:

1. persistent or pervasive attacks by a single editor or coordinated attacks by a group of editors
2. targeting a single person or restricted group of persons (e.g. not all Republicans or all teenagers)
3. recognizable intent to demean, intimidate, etc. or intent to initiate some sort of unwanted or culturally inappropriate physical contact.

I agree that in rare circumstances a single event might be regarded as harassment, but I think this needs to be pretty extreme (typically involving threats or physical contact). The typical example I remember of a single event being treated as sexual harassment (I think it is included in an article linked to by Sarah (SlimVirgin) is where an employee tweaks the nipple of a colleague. I think we need to resist any temptation to expand definitions inappropriately. I would prefer to add a brief mention of "identity-based aggravation" to all three policies: WP:Civility, WP:NPA, and WP:Harassment, rather than debase language by extending our interpretation of harassment to include isolated cases of what could arguably called identity-based personal attacks or incivility (e.g. "don't act like a knobhead", "are you a total spazz?" or "Get off my talk page, m*th*rf*cker"). But I don't really think it is necessary, unless it is the only way to stop the concept of harassment being overextended. --Boson (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So if someone is in a dispute with you, and he posts on your user talk page – just one person, just one time – a long, detailed, and violent story about you being repeatedly raped and sexually mutilated, then that's okay with you? Or maybe it's bad, but it's not sexual harassment? (What exactly is it, then?)

If you're looking for American legal precedents from the workplace, that single incident counts as "conduct of a sexual nature" and could easily be construed as having the "purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment." The UN defines it this way: "such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contact and advances, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions". Words alone, regardless of the risk of physical contact, are entirely sufficient. There are more definitions here, but none of them require the risk of physical contact or claim that single incidents cannot be sexual harassment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

... then that's okay with you? No, I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation of my remarks. My point was that not everything that is bad is necessarily harassment. The scenario you describe is not the sort of behaviour which is likely to be in dispute. I am thinking more of cases where an editor is casually referrred to as a serial rapist, a m*th*rf*ck*r, a spazz or a retard, or some other abusive term related to sexual orientation or behaviour, disability, etc.). I wrote "something like ... " and "typically ..." with a reason. As well as persistency and pervasiveness you could perhaps add length and graphic detail. But, in any case , I would regard your scenario (as I understand it) as an aggravated personal attack (what I called identity-based aggravation) that would result in an immediate block. Identity-based harassment is extremely serious and needs to be defined restrictively. Gradations are important if we are to avoid dilution. Perhaps we can't do better than the language of the current proposal: "Behavior that is more severe, pervasive and persistent is more likely to be harassment." --Boson (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand from this that "harassment" is "extremely serious" and that your definition of "extremely serious" does not include be subjected to a long, detailed, violent story about you being repeatedly raped and sexually mutilated by an editor who is in a dispute with you. Then what exactly is "extremely serious" in your mind? (Real example, by the way.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood again. I explained what I was referring to, but I should have been clearer. You may have missed "As well as persistency and pervasiveness you could perhaps add length and graphic detail." --Boson (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Boson, I specified in the original question that the sexual comment was both "long" and "detailed". I'm looking for a direct answer to a plain question: Would such a post to your talk page be sexual harassment of you, or not? "Yes" or "no" are possible answers to that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the short answer to your binary question is "yes". That answer is tentative, inadequate, and potentially misleading. Unfortunately, the answer "no" would be even more misleading. "Yes" or "no" answers to this sort of question are seldom appropriate. For a more nuanced answer, see my previous replies. I would be happy to continue a more nuanced and less adversarial discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of extending the definition of harassment beyond its traditional definition. --Boson (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am dubious that we could find a definition that is both verifiable and fits your notion of "tradition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The "traditional definition" I am talking about is the definition of "harass" that you will find in dictionaries, such as

• "to beset or trouble constantly "
• "to vex, trouble, or annoy continually "
• "to worry and impede by repeated attacks"
• "to fatigue or to tire with repeated and exhausting efforts"
• "to annoy endlessly or systematically".

What traditional definition were you thinking of? --Boson (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Boson, maybe we can find some common ground. Do you understand that "I'm mildly annoyed that he called me that name twice" constitutes both the "annoyance" and the "repeated" components of that definition, and therefore actually is harassment? If so, then perhaps we can agree that there is a continuum of harassment that ranges approximately from "I'm mildly annoyed" to "I've already called the police".

Also, did you notice that the definition does not require the offensive behavior to come from the same person or from a coordinated group? If every person you pass on the street makes a rude comment about your race, gender, or whatever, then you are being harassed even if each of them believed themselves to be the only person on the planet who was rude enough (or drunk enough) to say it to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

break

I've considerably strengthened the wording of the proposed draft. IMHO we already have enough policies against harassment and discrimination, etc., and for civility. Certainly so if admins cared to enforce the spirit of the rules. What is needed now is a rule with teeth, that demands enforcement. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

CorpM deleted my changes saying that I'm pontificating. He must be refering to the 1st paragraph

"Harassing an editor on the basis of their race, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability, or other form of group identity, is especially offensive because it effects others beyond the targeted editor. It creates a hostile environment for all others in the targeted group and prevents their full participation in creating our encyclopedia. The community demands that this type of harassment be stopped as soon as it is identified."

I've reverted back so that we can talk about it. I'm not pontificating, I'm quite serious about "The community demands that this type of harassment be stopped as soon as it is identified." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

All the sections in this policy follow a pretty consistent format of defining the behavior and asking editors to refrain from it. I don't think it's useful for us to deviate from this format for this particular section. For example, the Wikihounding section doesn't include commentary about how wikihounding can create a contentious work environment. The sexual harassment essay has plenty of room for this kind of thing, but short and simple seems to be how this page is built. CorporateM (Talk) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my proposed section is about 20 words shorter than the Wikihounding section and Wikihounding does contain the following explanation of why that behavior is offensive

"The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

So let's not get hung up on a standard format (that doesn't really exist anyway) and concentrate on content. The content that we need is "The community demands that this type of harassment be stopped as soon as it is identified." Not more boring "be nice" text. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to have two drafts to work on, so I would propose going back to working on CorpM's version. I think it is weakened by the addition of things like "The community demands ..." We have gone beyond political agitation to policy. Similarly with explanations like "especially offensive because .... "; it is unneeded and weakens the policy.

What we are doing here is not "work" in that sense, so I agree with the removal of "work" from "work environment". --Boson (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As regards CorpM's proposal:

We have a general policy against harassment, so I don't see the rationale for including "professional background" as being particulaly offensive forms of harassment. But the same applies even more to other forms of "group identity" (whatever different people might understand that to mean). We probably don't want to harass members of the Ku Klux Klan or Daesh, but I wouldn't call it especially offensive to do so. We should stick to criteria listed in places like the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (as one of the most up-to-date lists).

• I was a bit confused at first by "directing the following at other editors" (perhaps because I was thinking of "followers" in this context), so perhaps that could be reworded slightly.
• As I said elsewhere, I don't think "sexual advances" is particularly relevant for Wikipedia (and we have no authority to make policy for anything else). I don't recall ever seeing even mild flirting.
• I think we may need to be even clearer that harassment has to be persistent (or exceedingly egregious). We should not confuse harassment with simple personal attacks or incivility. We are talking about something that at least borders on the criminal.

--Boson (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the text proposed by CorpM is fairly wishy-washy, especially when you consider all the other policies that we currently have that say essentially the same thing, but are not enforced. What would be different about this policy? What I'm trying to get at in the version I put forward is that there should be a presumption of enforcement. Admins and others love to discuss at great length and in great detail about (sometimes imagined) fine points of a policy's text. And then they don't do anything. Everybody deserves a fair hearing, but I say that any identity-based harassment has to be stopped while the hearing is ongoing, and that the presumption should be that, if members of the identity-based group say something is harassment, then it probably is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a "presumption of enforcement". It's like saying lets skip the courtroom and presume everyone is guilty. I've been accused of racial discrimination just for rejecting an AFC. I hope that wouldn't lead to "enforcement" CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Though I respect the motivation of ensuring that policies are enforced, I think the way to do that is to ensure that they are as concise and unambiguous as possible, fair and sensible, and accepted as such by the community (and especially by the admins who will be responsible for enforcing them). The more redundant explanations are added, I think, the less likely the policies are to be enforced properly, consistently, and without favour. If this is to work, I don't think harassment policy and its enforcement can be seen in isolation from WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY where the same sort of mistake was made. --Boson (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support for #2/3. It's become obvious in recent days that ENWP needs a stronger policy to cover protected classes than it currently has. When we have the least strong policy of any grup remotely aligned with our values and editors are leaving it... it says something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, as then there'd be no reason to add other amounts of harassment. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose we merge the draft at Wikipedia:Harassment/draft with the draft at WP:Sexual_harassment. If there's no objections today I'll merge the contents of the former into the later, and set up the former to redirect to the later. --ScWizard (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "merge"? The latter proposed target contains advice, statements of intent, etc. that do not really belong in a Wikipedia policy. I don't think you should perform a merge without prior positive consensus. --Boson (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC) As I understand it, there is as yet no consensus for a separate policy (page) on sexual harassment, so the target of any merge should currently be Wikipedia:Harassment/draft. --Boson (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the target page, but no one needs "consensus" to work on a sandbox page, including merging material between sandboxes; the whole point of sandboxes and drafts is they're experimental. People can create as many competing drafts as they want, though centralizing the material in one place is a highly effective way to help reach consensus on it. There's also no problem with the draft sandbox page containing a lead-in section with statements of intent, advice, etc., with actual proposed policy language clearly distinct from that material. It's entirely reasonable to expect that some proposed changes to this policy will succeed, and that some proposed advice will also find consensus, and end up in an essay. No one's head will asplode if these are centrally discussed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC) I've struck my comment on where to centralize it; several others seem to think that a draft policy rewrite page is a poor idea when the discussion is still going on to decide whether any changes to the policy are needed, so I'll defer to those views. The draft/essay at WP:Sexual harassment is probably the better home for draft language for now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: We tell the victim what to do (inform politely, escalate to ANI), but we don't tell the accused how to respond. Let's add advice for the accused.

I ran across an instance of racial harassment a year or two ago. An editor called another editor, a self-identified African-American man, a "little boy". This is a racially charged insult; however, it's also possible that the offender was unaware of the other editor's race. A useful outcome is an unconditional apology and a promise not to do it again: "Sorry, I didn't realize that you were an African-American man" or "Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, and I won't say that again". I think in a number of cases, "Sorry, I didn't realize that was offensive to you. I'll try to remember not to say that again" would stop these disputes quite early.

A useless outcome is bickering over whether that's "really" harassment or "actually" offensive enough to matter or if it was intentionally insulting, or if the behavior persisted long enough to by "truly" destructive, or whether your culture (which is highly offended) is more correct than my subculture (because me and my close buddies think this is just fine, and besides, the purpose of a talk page is to provide a free-speech forum for editors, right?). It's better just to acknowledge that you upset someone, to apologize, and to try to avoid making the same mistake twice. And I believe that this is more likely to happen if we directly recommend this behavior to people who have been accused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree! [Note: @WhatamIdoing: People may be confused by what you posted, because it reads "I have a suggestion: We tell the victim what to do ... but we don't tell the accused ...", so it seems the suggestion is to not tell the accused anything. Suggest revision to "Since we tell the accuser ... we should also tell the accused ...". Feel free to delete this bracketed note if you revise.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the wider issues

Sandstein, above, put their finger on one of the elephants in the room (if you will forgive the mixed metaphor) – but only on one side of it. The other side is that contributors may be ignored and casually assigned to a particular perceived enemy camp, e.g. the militant civility activists or radical feminists vs the serial abusers or misogynists and their apologists.

Arbitrators have identified as a problem that, as formulated, relevant policies are not working and need to be fixed by the community. But this has not happened. Who was it said something about "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"? Fixing one part of one policy text in isolation may not fix the problem; it may even lead to more abuse of process. We should fix WP:Civility, WP:NPA, and WP:Harassment so that they form an integrated whole that is workable and fair. And then we should perhaps modify other policies or procedures with a view to discouraging them-and-us mentality. --Boson (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree (and I chuckle at the idea of someone finger-poking the elephant; does it wriggle?). Some supporters of forking the policy into various "WP:Insert type here harassment" micro-policies seem to be oblivious to the fact that this approach is ripe for WP:GAMING – interpretation of some other kind of harassment as OK because it wasn't specifically, topically enumerated. And they seem not to notice the "with allies like that, who needs enemies?" effect, in which proponents of these highly specific policy changes are demonizing all objectors (who have different reasons for objecting) as misogynists, transphobes, etc., and making valid concerns about harassment and bias seem to more and more editors like special pleading, external campaigning against the WP community, "p.-c." language policing, and hypocrisy. See the RM discussion at WT:DIVA for a great example, and see also "It's this sort of clueless phrasing that makes dealing with allies so difficult", and many other concerns, at the big VPPOL TG-related discussion.

Our generalized rules are a good basis from which to work, and integrating the better, and enforcing them better are going to be the solutions. Topically forking an inadequate policy is just going to give us lots of inadequate policies with exploitable wiggle room between them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WMF "Non Discrimination Policy" already applies to WP anyway

The ungrammatically named wmf:Non discrimination policy already applies to Wikipedia and all other WMF projects. As it states, it "is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." It continues: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users" on the basis of any criteria we'd ever be likely to want to cover here. Just sayin'. All this noise about "We need to import WMF's policy and apply it to WP!" is pointless hot air, as is much of the demanding to fork WP:HARRASS into various subtopical microaggressions policies on the basis that WMF's NDP doesn't cover WP so we have to compensate somehow. (I've said before that its provisions about inter-employee relations don't apply to editors, but its clear wording does apply the general scope of the NDP to editors, and even to non-editor users.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Bold change was made

Last Sunday(!) @Otr500: made a bold change, that really changes the discrimination-harassment landscape on Wikipedia. I generally support it and it seems to reflect the consensus above. The complete text is as follows:

"Harassment against any editor because of a belief or perception regarding race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia."

With Otr500 adding a link to WP:NPA and me adding a link to WP:Non discrimination policy

I think we should leave it as is for now - i.e. it becomes part of policy - but also have a discussion on any changes needed and whether any expansion is needed (e.g. an additional Sexual harassment policy).

This discussion is especially needed because, according to @Roger Davies: above and on Wikipedia talk:Non discrimination policy, the current non discrimination policy *does not* cover user-to-user interactions. So according to that interpretation, Otr500's addition is a huge leap forward. User-on-user sexual harassment and other identity based harassment is now against WP policy.

I suggest we leave it as is for now, and talk about any tweaks or extensions

Support or oppose

1. Support keeping as is for now Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Often, all we need in a policy or guideline is the mention of a few key words: Yes, that kind of spam really is prohibited by WP:EL; yes, that kind of medicine really is covered by MEDRS; yes, that kind of harassment is also prohibited. If we need to clarify it or expand on it later, then we can do that later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support keeping as is for now Gandydancer (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Seems like a good reflection of the general consensus above. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose - A reasonable interpretation of the wording as it now stands may conclude that WP:HARASSMENT only covers identity based harassment. I suggest that for many editors the harassment that they receive is not related to stated or perceived identity. (The harassment that I have personally received on WP is certainly not identity based). I believe that the policy should explicitly state that all harassment, for any reason, on any basis, is unacceptable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Support - The least we can do. Good step. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

• This does reflect the consensus above that all identity-based harassment should be against policy. It does not reflect the strong support for a special section on sexual harassment, but that can be added later if it indeed reaches consensus. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note that CorporateM and PSouthwood have change the sentence to:

"Harassment against an editor on their basis of a real or alleged race, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other reason is not allowed."

with PSouthwood adding the "or any other reason". CorpM's change seems ok with me, but I think we should have some discussion before we make these bold changes. PSouthwood's change seems just too vague to me. "Any other reason" could literally mean anything, and detracts from the emphasis the sentence has on banning identity-based harassment.

I reverted the "or any other reason". Let's discuss changes to this sentence before we change it again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to words which specify types of harassment which have been noted as particularly prevalent or problematic, but I do consider that the wording of a policy on harassment must make it perfectly clear that no form of harassment for any reason whatsoever is acceptable. If no form of harassment is acceptable, then the reasons become irrelevant, and only the behaviour needs to be considered. A large amount of logic chopping can be avoided altogether, when investigating allegations, as the precise intentions of the alleged offender would no longer need to be proven. The current wording suggests that only the listed reasons are covered by the policy. Hence my amendment, reverted by Smallbones. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what you want follows immediately in the next paragraph:

"The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to harass any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Harassment is contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia."

but people in the above extended discussion wanted to make sure that identity-based harassment was also recognized. One sentence for identity-based harassment, one paragraph for everything else. More specific cases below in other sections. Seems ok to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This section seems to have run its course. Tweaks are being made (e.g. on "real or alleged") and discussed below. It looks like about 4 other editors see no problem with the basic idea. Let's continue any further discussion below. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:07, 19 August 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)

• Notice: Someone else WP:POVFORKed a competing draft, at WP:Sexual harassment policy. I merged this to the draft at WP:Sexual harassment, and redirected the misleading page title "WP:Sexual harassment policy" to the actual policy, WP:Harassment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:34, 25 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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^(TALK_CONT) 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

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)

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)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 [12]). 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)

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)