Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultation: Difference between revisions
Add general comment about UCoC text |
|||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
===S Marshall=== |
===S Marshall=== |
||
At the moment, the community deals with vandals by RBI. The draft text of this universal code of conduct, at section 3.3, requires us to engage with them: it clearly and specifically rules out our current process of reverting vandals' edits and denying them the oxygen of attention. Where is the correct place to discuss fixes to the draft UCoC text?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
At the moment, the community deals with vandals by RBI. The draft text of this universal code of conduct, at section 3.3, requires us to engage with them: it clearly and specifically rules out our current process of reverting vandals' edits and denying them the oxygen of attention. Where is the correct place to discuss fixes to the draft UCoC text?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
===WJBscribe=== |
|||
I am working my way through the questions above. In the meantime I wanted to raise a concern about the language of the UCoC as drafted. It includes the following: |
|||
:"''Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not. (Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for personal attacks.)''" |
|||
The note is problematic for a number of reasons: |
|||
# What is "the Wikipedia movement"? Is this a synonym for WMF, the Board, or is it an attempt to speak for all contributors on all projects? |
|||
# A contributor to this project may feel that their "race" and "ethnicity" are an extremely meaningful part of their self identity. Ironically, they may feel harassed if these characteristics being dismissed out of hand. Saying that these are not endorsed as "meaningful distinctions" is a potentially divisive political statement. It has not place in the UCoC. |
|||
# Why are only "race" and "ethnicity" single out, does that mean that by implication WMF (or worse all of us, if that is what Wikimedia movement means) <u>do endorse</u> the other characteristics listed as <u>meaningful distinctions amount people</u> (e.g. caste, disability?)!?! |
|||
The note requires urgent attention. I am seriously troubled that the Board appears to have endorsed this language. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 10:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:43, 7 April 2021
- This page contains discussion topics for the Universal Code of Conduct community consultation from April–May 2021. For more information, see the 2021 consultations page and the Universal Code of Conduct overview.
![]() | This page in a nutshell: The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking input about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct. This page hosts the discussion related to English Wikipedia. Discussions are happening on many projects and are listed at the 2021 consultations page. |
Request for comment: Universal Code of Conduct application
![]() |
|
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking input about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct.
The goal of this consultation is to help outline clear enforcement pathways for a drafting committee to design proposals for a comprehensive community review later this year. The proposals may integrate with existing processes or additional pathways that may be suggested. For more information about the UCoC project, see Universal Code of Conduct overview.
Discussions are happening on many projects and are listed at the 2021 consultations page.
Please discuss in the subsections below and let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Consultation structure
There are five topics with several questions to help start conversations. Feedback provided will have a significant impact on the draft for enforcement guidelines that will be prepared following the comment period.
- Please do not feel obligated to answer every question, focusing on what is important or impactful. We understand giving opinions on this topic can be difficult.
- While it will be necessary to describe experiences in a general way, these discussions are not the place to re-visit previously decided matters which should be handled at a more appropriate location.
- Each topic has several questions to help understand how the Universal Code of Conduct might interface with different communities.
- For answers to some frequently asked questions, please see this page.
- Please note
- If you wish to report a specific incident, please use existing pathways. If that is not an acceptable pathway, outlining in more general terms why the existing process does not work will be useful. Please avoid sending incident reports or appeals to facilitators or organizers. The people organizing discussions are not the staff that handle specific abuse reports or appeals and are not able to respond in that capacity.
- Community support
- How can the effectiveness of anti-harassment efforts be measured?
- What actions can be taken and what structures should be available to support those being targeted by harassment and those that respond to conduct issues?
- What formal or informal support networks are available for contributors? What is necessary for these groups to function well, and what challenges are there to overcome?
- What additional opportunities are there to deliver effective support for contributors? What would be useful in supporting communities, contributors, targets of harassment, and responders?
- Reporting pathways
- How can reporting pathways be improved for targets of harassment? What types of changes would make it more or less challenging for users to submit appropriate reports?
- What is the best way to ensure safe and proper handling of incidents involving i) vulnerable people; ii) serious harassment; or iii) threats of violence?
- In your experience, what are effective ways to respond to those who engage in behaviours that may be considered harassment?
- In what ways should reporting pathways provide for mediation, reform, or guidance about acceptable behaviours?
- Managing reports
- Making reporting easier will likely increase the number of reports: in what ways can the management of reports be improved?
- What type of additional resources would be helpful in identifying and addressing harassment and other conduct issues?
- Are there human, technical, training, or knowledge-based resources the Foundation could provide to assist volunteers in this area?
- How should incidents be dealt with that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them, such as in-person or online meetings?
- Handling reports
- In what ways should reports be handled to increase confidence from affected users that issues will be addressed responsibly and appropriately?
- What appeal process should be in place if participants want to request a review of actions taken or not taken?
- When private reporting options are used, how should the duty to protect the privacy and sense of safety of reporters be balanced with the need for transparency and accountability?
- What privacy controls should be in place for data tracking in a reporting system used to log cross-wiki or persistent abusers?
- Global questions
- How should issues be handled where there is no adequate local body to respond, for example, allegations against administrators or functionary groups?
- In the past, the global movement has identified projects that are struggling with neutrality and conduct issues: in what ways could a safe and fair review be conducted in these situations?
- How would a global dispute resolution body work with your community?
Discussion
Community support
How can the effectiveness of anti-harassment efforts be measured?
- I am not sure effectiveness of effort is something that can be measured, other than in the negative - sure, if reports of harassment go up, we know our efforts are NOT effective. But a decrease in reports does not necessarily mean our efforts were effective... it could just mean fewer people had confidence that if they report harassment it will stop. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that this is not measurable. Reports will likely go up because structures are put in place; that doesn't mean more harassment happens. In fact, I think that every study I've participated in with respect to harassment on Wikimedia projects has been tainted by the fact that there was no way to say things like "it happened once 8 years ago, but never since" or "it happened and was well addressed by the community". (In other words, those studies never measured the frequency of harassment or the effectiveness of existing solutions.) Frankly, if the only purpose of the UCoC is as an anti-harassment tool, then we're doing it wrong. Risker (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think we probably could figure out an indirect measurement by measuring perceived levels of harassment, if we gave it some good thought. A survey, ongoing or intermittent, that invites randomly-chosen accounts to participate. Should be super simple, something along the lines of "1. Have you personally experienced or witnessed harassment within the past 30 days? (Terrible question, but just for a general idea.) Numbers go up or down over (some tbd time period, I agree that we shouldn't assume an initial period of upticking is evidence to the contrary, as it could simply be an increase in awareness of what constitutes harassment), but eventually we have some indirect measure. OR: allow editors to flag posts by others that include either a ping to them or are on their own talk page. This last is IMO something we should have been doing for the past ten years, but of course it requires a developer and some assessment/response mechanism. Again, this would be only an indirect measure; both methodologies are actually measuring levels of perceived harassment. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
What actions can be taken and what structures should be available to support those being targeted by harassment and those that respond to conduct issues?
- Those experiencing harassment can report it to administrators and ultimately ArbCom. This usually works. If we create a formal system beyond this, things become too bureaucratic. Harassment issues often need a more flexible non-bureaucratic approach. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are two types of harassment. One is obsious cases like off-wiki harassment or situations where on-wiki harassment can be proven with one or two diffs. These probably can be solved by existing structures (though I have doubt about support, some psychological help service would be good, but I am not sure we can afford it). Another type when things are happening in small steps, and one needs a hundreds of diffs to see anything and another hundreds of diffs to see whether this is really one-side harassment and not a situation where one side of a dispute wants to get advantage by calling actions of the other side harassment. So far nobody on the English Wikipedia, including the ArbCom, was not willing to launch investigation, find the diffs, understand the situation, and work out the solution. The only structure willing to do it was T&S, but it is not scalable. I am not sure what scalable structure we could have here, but we can think about one.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a button that can be used to flag posts as harassment. I don't know how this works to keep it from becoming its own form of harassment -- maybe you only get one such flag a month? Maybe it's a right that can be removed for abusing it? —valereee (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think meaningful resources should be available to those who feel harassed for any reason. MWF benefits from a vast amount of volunteer labour and these days has access to considerable financial resource. It would be good if some of that was directed to providing help for the volunteer community at the heart of the project. WJBscribe (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
What formal or informal support networks are available for contributors? What is necessary for these groups to function well, and what challenges are there to overcome?
- No formal networks as far as I am aware of, unless we count T&S as network. Informally, pretty much depends on the connections. I am (almost) not on social media, I am not a member of any Wikiprojects, I have been to a few meetups but I am certainly not a Wikimeetup regular - which means if I am in trouble I am basically on my own. If I manage to formulate the issues better than my opponent can, I probably would not lose much beyond my time spent, but if my opponent has a lot of time, determination, a number of friends, and does not screw up really badly, my case is hopeless whatever I do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of current structured support leads inherently to people feeling isolated or forming small groups for informal support. Such groups are likely to share similar world views and may not view issues objectively as a result given the diverse backgrounds of contributors. As noted above, the WMF has access to financial resources to provide meaningful support to the volunteer community. It should be looking at the kind of support for stressed/harassed employees which are commonly provided by other corporations. WJBscribe (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
What additional opportunities are there to deliver effective support for contributors? What would be useful in supporting communities, contributors, targets of harassment, and responders?
- Fix our admin tools so that they are fit for purpose. MER-C 17:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- See my comments above. Treat volunteers editors, admins etc at least as well as you would paid employees doing the same job and invest the same resources. What resources are available to WMF paid staff who report feeling stressed/harassed? The same should be given to volunteer contributors. WJBscribe (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Reporting pathways
How can reporting pathways be improved for targets of harassment? What types of changes would make it more or less challenging for users to submit appropriate reports?
- At the very least, there should be a page with a flowchart/wizard/algorithm that tells the user where is the best place to report it and what evidence they need to provide. MER-C 17:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Each project should be looked at individually in this regard, and given help in strengthening its processes. I do not believe this should be centralised, save in respect to the most serious incidents (i.e. those that may need to involve law enforcement), or for very small projects that lack dispute resolution mechanisms. WJBscribe (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
What is the best way to ensure safe and proper handling of incidents involving i) vulnerable people; ii) serious harassment; or iii) threats of violence?
- See above. Certain things shouldn't be posted publicly. MER-C 17:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Serious harassment and threats of violence (as issues potentially requiring the involvement of law enforcement) can be dealt with by a central mechanism. Projects should be better assisted to deal with specific requirements of "vulnerable people". WJBscribe (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
In your experience, what are effective ways to respond to those who engage in behaviours that may be considered harassment?
- I am not sure if I've correctly understood the phrase "may be considered" - does this mean that the behaviour is not objectively harassment, but may be perceived as such? That is a very tricky area, given the multi diverse backgrounds of our contributors, which can easily lead to good faithed mistaken perceptions of others. However, inappropriate allegations of harassment and, in of themselves, a form of harassment. If the issue is that behaviour that is not actually harassment is being perceived as such, both parties may be in need of assistance - there ought to be no "first mover" advantage in who first makes a report of harassment. For example, an editor may feel harassed by an administrator who is taking legitimately taking issue with their contributions to the project. Say the administrator noticed that they had uploaded a non-free image with incorrect tagging. The administrator, following an echange about this with the contributor, realises that the contributor does not understand the licensing requirements, reviews the contributors other uploads and tags a number of further images for deletion. The contributors perceives this as unwarranted personal attention and/or "stalking" of their contributions. It is important in this sort of context that the labels applied by the contributor are not unquestioningly accepted - that time is taken to explain the situation carefully to the contributor, and support is given to the administrator who is likely to feel stressed as a result of the allegations being made about them. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
In what ways should reporting pathways provide for mediation, reform, or guidance about acceptable behaviours?
Managing reports
Making reporting easier will likely increase the number of reports: in what ways can the management of reports be improved?
- Reports should be visible to all in an anonymized form. It should be clear to all that anonymizedaccountX filed 20 reports on fifteen different editors and anonymizedaccountY has had five reports filed about them, but the diffs and the usernames should be visible to only those with certain rights. If a report is deemed to warrant an investigation, that should be visible to all, as well as some general statement of any outcome. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
What type of additional resources would be helpful in identifying and addressing harassment and other conduct issues?
Are there human, technical, training, or knowledge-based resources the Foundation could provide to assist volunteers in this area?
- I was pointed to a community discussion, Special:PermanentLink/1016202536#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) wherein a strong desire was expressed for resources to be deployed to improve the ability to reach mobile editors. There are a number of phabricator reports at the linked thread. Suffusion of Yellow is tracking these issues. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
How should incidents be dealt with that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them, such as in-person or online meetings?
A general concern – it doesn't make clear about whether it applies to non-Wikimedia actions. For example, suppose someone has a Twitter or personal blog or website, and they make a post which has nothing to do with any Wikimedia project. Could such a post be punished under this code of conduct? Or should actions/statements/etc which occur outside of any Wikimedia project or event, and which aren't making any reference to any Wikimedia event, be excluded? I think, statements and actions which occur outside of the context of any Wikimedia project or event, and which don't make any reference to any Wikimedia project or event, should be out of scope for any "Code of Conduct". Mr248 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC) portion copied from #Mr248's feedback
Handling reports
In what ways should reports be handled to increase confidence from affected users that issues will be addressed responsibly and appropriately?
- Reports should be visible to all in an anonymized form. It should be clear to all that anonymizedaccountX filed 20 reports on fifteen different editors and anonymizedaccountY has had five reports filed about them, but the diffs and the usernames should be visible to only those with certain rights. If a report is deemed to warrant an investigation, that should be visible to all, as well as some general statement of any outcome. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
What appeal process should be in place if participants want to request a review of actions taken or not taken?
When private reporting options are used, how should the duty to protect the privacy and sense of safety of reporters be balanced with the need for transparency and accountability?
- You can't. If incidents such as
i) vulnerable people; ii) serious harassment; or iii) threats of violence
are taking place, absolute privacy and safety should be guaranteed to reporters. IMO all you can do is make sure those investigating these incidents are competent, diligent and empathetic people and ideally put in place some sort of clear review mechanism - perhaps some kind of committee composed of community members and trained WMF staffers - so there's a sense of accountability. Making some kind of global WMF committee seems difficult though (just look at the Ombuds), and this mechanism only works if you can recruit competent and active community members to volunteer their time to do smoke-filled work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
What privacy controls should be in place for data tracking in a reporting system used to log cross-wiki or persistent abusers?
Global questions
How should issues be handled where there is no adequate local body to respond, for example, allegations against administrators or functionary groups?
In the past, the global movement has identified projects that are struggling with neutrality and conduct issues: in what ways could a safe and fair review be conducted in these situations?
How would a global dispute resolution body work with your community?
Additional discussion
Questions
General comments
The following links may be useful for background: (copied from meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Discussions)
- English Wikipedia
- June 2019 discussion, strong opposition to WMF-imposed UCoC
- 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections: Each candidate provided feedback on the UCoC in their answers to questions.
- May 2020 English Wikipedia discussion held after the Board of Trustees community health statement
- 2020 English Wikipedia Anti-harassment request for comment
- on the relationship with T&S:
- Editors strongly feel that en-wiki issues should be handled "in-house", and only matters that affect the real world (Q2, Q3) should be passed to T&S. A better/improved dialogue between ArbCom and the WMF is also desired, with the Foundation and T&S passing along en-wiki-specific information to ArbCom to handle.
- There was a desire from some editors, expressed in this section as well in previous sections, for the WMF to hire/find/create resources and training for mediation and dispute resolution, which would hopefully mitigate some of the most prevalent civility/harassment issues present on Wikipedia.
- September 2020 English Wikipedia discussion
(Note by Jonesey95:) The links above are copied here for convenience so that applicable excerpts of those discussions can be inserted here without having to rehash those discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr248's feedback
Sorry if I have put this in the wrong place I am confused about where it goes. If I have put it in the wrong place please move it. I don't have a problem with a "Code of Conduct" per se but I have some concerns about the text of this specific code of conduct:
People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns
I have trouble remembering what pronoun to use for people and so often try to avoid using pronouns. I'm concerned that a policy might be interpreted as saying you have to use for people the pronouns they prefer, as opposed to choosing to avoid using pronouns entirely, and hence my action of avoiding using pronouns might violate the policy. Sometimes I also call people "they", by which I mean "I don't remember what pronoun to use for you so I am just using 'they' as a default". (I think it is quite standard English to use "they" as a default pronoun when you aren't sure what pronoun to use.) I am concerned some people might make a big issue of that ("they is not my pronoun!") which would be a distraction, and honestly would make me feel unwelcome.
Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for personal attacks
I think that is problematic because some people identify with their race or ethnicity, and this could be read as saying officially that their choice of personal identification is invalid. For example, if a person of Italian descent identifies their ethnicity as "Italian" (or "Italian-American" or whatever), this seems to be saying their choice to consider that an important part of their own identity is invalid. Or similarly, if an African-American person identifies as "Black", this could be read as saying that their Black identity is not "meaningful", which they may well find offensive.
Hate speech in any form
I am concerned that is too vague. Some people understand "hate speech" as meaning stuff like using slurs, negative stereotypes/generalisations, etc, and I don't have a problem with prohibiting that. But other people interpret it much more expansively–for example, if a person has conservative religious views on sexual morality, some people would interpret the mere expression of those views as "hate speech"–and I'm concerned about those more expansive definitions. Of course, if a person has such views, they shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a soapbox for expressing them, but they may nonetheless be revealed somehow.
A general concern – it doesn't make clear about whether it applies to non-Wikimedia actions. For example, suppose someone has a Twitter or personal blog or website, and they make a post which has nothing to do with any Wikimedia project. Could such a post be punished under this code of conduct? Or should actions/statements/etc which occur outside of any Wikimedia project or event, and which aren't making any reference to any Wikimedia event, be excluded? I think, statements and actions which occur outside of the context of any Wikimedia project or event, and which don't make any reference to any Wikimedia project or event, should be out of scope for any "Code of Conduct". Mr248 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Mr248: thank you for your comment. This is a fine place to leave it, would it be okay if I copied some relevant portions to the question buckets above? Your last paragraph for example, would fit into #How should incidents be dealt with that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them, such as in-person or online meetings?
- There are ongoing discussions about the actual policy text itself at meta:talk:Universal Code of Conduct and meta:talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks sure you can copy my comment (or parts thereof) wherever you wish. Mr248 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Johnuniq
From UCoC 3.1 – Harassment: "Harassment ... may include contacting workplaces or friends and family members in an effort to intimidate or embarrass.
" The "in an effort" clause makes the sentence pointless because a perpetrator can say their contacting an editor's workplace was in an effort to reach out and help the person develop (in fact, any such unsolicited contact should be forbidden). Harassment is defined as several items almost all of which would earn the perpetrator an immediate and permanent block at enwiki—no UCoC is needed. Does anyone in the WMF imagine that sexual harassment and threats etc. are tolerated? The problematic items are insults (how do I tell someone that their English is not adequate or that their edits show they don't understand the topic or Wikipedia's role?) and hounding (it's hard to know whether use of Special:Contributions is done to protect the encyclopedia or merely to upset/discourage a contributor—in fact, good editors have to upset and discourage ungood editors every day). Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from zzuuzz
I sometimes wonder if what I'm about to say is out of scope for what the WMF is thinking, but I think it's relevant so I'll say it anway. It addresses several of the questions posed, and none at the same time. I think it might be the elephant in the room.
I deal with an enormous amount of harassment - to me, other users, article subjects, as well as others - death threats, graphic threats of violence, threats to family members, persistent libel, doxxing, pestering, racial, sexual, you name it. The next steps are usually relatively straightforward and swiftly done in my experience - block, ban, disable email and TPA, range blocks, edit filters, and protection where we can (other lesser methods are available). In some cases we'll see a WMF ban get put in place. It just continues however, and it's usually from a relatively small group of the same people. The way I see it, a WMF global ban is not even an end goal, but usually just the start. We don't need guidelines of unacceptable behaviour to stop harassment, that is easy, we need the WMF to act in the real world, to work with ISPs, legal, PR, tech, the ordinary admins who witness it, and really anyone else they need to, in order get the crazies effectively legally and technically kicked off the site. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent comment that definitely reveals the elephant in the room. The UCoC might be a redundant feel-good exercise when what is needed is real-world action regarding LTAs. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. What has the WMF done to escalate matters when WMF bans don't work? If nothing, the UCOC is at best social washing. MER-C 17:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Zzuuzz put it much better than I ever could. The only thing this will do is bother and constrain the editors who are following the rules or whom are minor nuisances. For the biggest problem editors, real-world action needs to be taken, and since WP:Abuse response - our previous effort at trying to handle this matter locally - was completely ineffectual without WMF Legal teeth, this absolutely must be handled by the WMF in a more offensive-oriented matter. Playing defence doesn't work when the enemy can just assault the fortress without any meaningful repercussions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- This, and the section above/below, seems to presume that the only type of harassment is that from socks/LTAs. That may be the most voluminous, and it's certainly the type the community's established processes deal best with (
block, ban, disable email and TPA, range blocks, edit filters, and protection where we can
), but I'm not sure it's the most severe or difficult to deal with. It'd be nice if UCOC enforcement dealt with the problem of unblockables, and also with the problem of new editors subject to problems (esp offwiki) who are not familiar with norms and reporting mechanisms available to them (indeed, Wikipedia:Contact us has no mention of mechanisms existing, such as ArbCom's contact info). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Firefly
I agree entirely with zzuzz's comments above - in my opinion the English Wikipedia handles most cases of harrassment as well as it can, by blocking offenders and the tools they use (e.g. open proxies, VPN endpoints, etc.), and requesting global locks if required in cases of cross-wiki abuse. However, this is ultimately a game of whack-a-mole. We have multiple LTAs that get hold of new proxies of various types incredibly easily and start up their lunacy once again. We need concerted action from the WMF in the following areas: (a) a system to proactively globally block open proxies & VPN endpoints, (b) a framework to request "Office contact" with ISPs whose subscribers commit serious, on-going, intractable abuse on Wikimedia projects, and most importantly (c) a formal way for admins, stewards, and functionaries on the various projects to work with the WMF to address the issues of long-term, serious abuse. Without these, the UCoC is going to achieve very, very little I fear. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I feel it worth clarifying that I don't oppose the UCoC at all, I'm just skeptical it will actually achieve very much. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
S Marshall
At the moment, the community deals with vandals by RBI. The draft text of this universal code of conduct, at section 3.3, requires us to engage with them: it clearly and specifically rules out our current process of reverting vandals' edits and denying them the oxygen of attention. Where is the correct place to discuss fixes to the draft UCoC text?—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
WJBscribe
I am working my way through the questions above. In the meantime I wanted to raise a concern about the language of the UCoC as drafted. It includes the following:
- "Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not. (Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for personal attacks.)"
The note is problematic for a number of reasons:
- What is "the Wikipedia movement"? Is this a synonym for WMF, the Board, or is it an attempt to speak for all contributors on all projects?
- A contributor to this project may feel that their "race" and "ethnicity" are an extremely meaningful part of their self identity. Ironically, they may feel harassed if these characteristics being dismissed out of hand. Saying that these are not endorsed as "meaningful distinctions" is a potentially divisive political statement. It has not place in the UCoC.
- Why are only "race" and "ethnicity" single out, does that mean that by implication WMF (or worse all of us, if that is what Wikimedia movement means) do endorse the other characteristics listed as meaningful distinctions amount people (e.g. caste, disability?)!?!
The note requires urgent attention. I am seriously troubled that the Board appears to have endorsed this language. WJBscribe (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)