Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Harassment solutions

These kinds of controversies can lead to harassment issues:

• Caste
• Disability rights

{{hat|1=I am not allowed to talk about this. EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)}}

• Economic

{{hab}}

• Ethnic
• Gender
• Medical
• National
• Political
• Personal
• Philosophical
• Religious
• Scientific

include but are not limited to:

• WP:CONFLICT of interest editing
• WP:DIS Disruption
• WP:EW Reversion wars
• WP:GAME Gaming the system
• WP:HOUND Typical harassment
• WP:NPA Personal attacks
• WP:PUSH Deliberate bias
• WP:SHAM False consensus
• WP:TAGTEAM Affiliation bias

Harassment issues which you feel have not been adequately addressed or are ongoing issues affecting accuracy:

• Example: those affiliated with different sides of a controversy have been causing inaccurate articles on ______.

• Those trying to promote a particular product or service are harassing editors trying to maintain WP:NPOV.

• ____

• ____

; Positive examples

We should probably give examples of harassment that have been dealt with OK. An example from WP:AN/I is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Persia&diff=prev&oldid=969240089 where the remedy is for the recipient of the message is to remove the post from their talk page. After removal, I don't know if everyone is happy with the result. (Particularly offensive postings could be rev-delled or even oversighted). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

:Excellent! Other examples of really good resolutions to harassment issues? EllenCT (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• ____

• ____

{{tl|rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=CE428A8}}

How can we best address harassment and abuse of editors? Since this RfC has sub-proposals, I ask that it run for 45 days. EllenCT (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposals in this section are not put forward for consideration, but only alternative proposals and constructive criticism (e.g., "yes, and....") is allowed. Please boldly add comments to a proposal at any stage of development, but if you can't find anything nice to say, then try to make an additional, new, better solution. Please allow days to weeks for individual proposals to be developed. EllenCT (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We need some sort of definition of "friendly space" before we can reasonably comment here. If it means that nobody should ever tell anyone else that they are wrong then I would be vehemently opposed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

:I agree. I know there is a lot of work on drafting these sorts of things, but every time I've asked people for a draft in the previous month and before, they've asked me to wait. I'm generally optimistic, because I can't wait for the hegemony. I'm going to draft the friendliest friendly space policy known to emotively spatial denizens.

{{hat|Example existing code of conduct provisions}}

:* meta:Celtic Knot Conference 2020/Friendly Space Policy

:: {{cquote|Expected behaviour

Encourage a positive and friendly atmosphere Value each other's ideas, styles and viewpoints. Be aware that people may have different levels of knowledge, different skills and background than you. Be open to different possibilities and to being wrong. Be respectful in all interactions and communications. Be aware of your impact and how your contribution (messages, discussion, comments) may be affecting people. Before sending a message (especially a joke or criticism), take a minute to wonder if other people will feel hurt or annoyed by your message. Be direct, constructive and positive.

Respect people’s privacy and anonymity Some participants use a pseudonym and keep it distinct from their real identity. Never disclose private information about a person (real name, place of residence, family situation, sexual orientation, pictures…) without their explicit consent. Accept that people may not want to answer private questions.

Be mindful of the space you take During a discussion or in a working group, make sure that you're not the only one speaking or writing. Make sure that you leave enough space for others to participate, and encourage discussions rather than monologue. Actively encourage the participation of all attendees, especially from groups that may be under-represented in the crowd (women*, non-native speakers, newcomers).

Ask for help if needed The conference will cover a wide range of topics involving a lot of different tools, technologies, areas of knowledge. No one knows everything, and it's perfectly OK to have questions or to need help with something. Please ask for help when needed!

Help others If you have knowledge about a specific topic, or if you have this special skill of being able to find documentation even when it's well hidden, then please help others. Helping doesn't mean doing the work for them: you can point to useful documentation, answer questions, suggest workarounds.

Behaviour that will not be tolerated

The organising team will be especially careful about the following areas and can make the decision of temporarily or completely banning participants whose behaviour is considered harmful for others.

Harassment This includes, among other things, offensive statements about gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance such as physique, ethnicity or belief, representations of a sexual nature, conscious intimidation, stalking, persecution, unwanted photography or recording, repeated disruption of lectures and other events, undesirable physical Contact and unwanted sexual attention. People who are warned about such behaviour must stop it immediately.

Violence and Threats of Violence Violence and threats of violence are not acceptable - online or offline. This includes incitement of violence toward any individual, including encouraging a person to commit self-harm. This also includes posting or threatening to post other people’s personally identifying information ("doxxing") online.

Personal Attacks Conflicts will inevitably arise, but frustration should never turn into a personal attack. It is not okay to insult, demean or belittle others. Attacking someone for their opinions, beliefs and ideas is not acceptable.

Unwelcome Sexual Attention This includes comments, jokes or imagery in interactions of a sexual nature, communications or presentation materials, as well as sexual images or text. Simulated physical contact (such as emojis like "kiss") without affirmative consent is not acceptable.

Unwanted content Posting content, pictures or links that have nothing to do with the current topic. Repeatedly posting content, pictures on link about a topic that no one asked for. Promote repeatedly a specific opinion, medium, tool or project without being asked. This also includes: asking several times the same question after other participants tried to answer, asking very general questions that are not directly related to projects people are working on, calling out people asking for their opinion about a specific topic.}}

:* Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtandFeminism/Safespacepolicy

:: {{cquote| Remember the Common Goal. Our shared goal is to address one of the ways women and non-binary people have been systemically silenced; through the preservation of our history. Advancing gender equity and standing up for the histories of marginalized people is about disrupting inequity and inequality, building community, and enacting our values. That’s how we smash patriarchy. That’s how we create knowledge equity.

Make No Assumptions. When working with people, avoid assuming you know their sexual orientation, gender identity, or anything else related to their identity or experiences. Remember that every person is a complex individual with multiple overlapping identities, that may not fit your personal ideas, understandings or social constructs (i.e. gender, sexuality).

Use All-Gender Inclusive Language. Through conversation and during workshops and trainings, make sure the language you use is inclusive of all people. When referring to people in general, avoid gendered pronouns, using “they” instead of “he/she” unless they have explicitly stated their gender pronoun. Use words like “partner” instead of “ boyfriend/girlfriend” or “husband/wife.” Avoid addressing a group with “guys,” “ladies and gentlemen,” etc. and instead use “folks,” “y’all,” “everyone,” “friends,” etc.

Center Accessibility. Assume people with disabilities will attend your event, even if they have not made you aware of their disability, and know that they are stakeholders in your event. Schedule an orientation for all staff and volunteers to review your policy around making the event accessible for everyone. Visit the space together and consider what someone else may experience as they navigate this space. Is the space accessible to those with mobility concerns? If the building has more than one level - are elevators available? Is the space well-lit and obstruction free? Are bathrooms accessible and all gender-inclusive? Connect with resources within your community that offer disability services prior to your event. On event invitations and flyers, invite participants to email you if they will need accommodations or a sign language interpreter to attend the event. Include space on your registration form for people to express access needs.

Think about the spaces where events are being held and make sure it is fully accessible to all individuals. Add image and video text descriptions and subtitles to presentations. Make large print and physical copies of your slides, talks, or handouts available at your event for any participants who need them; ensure these materials are available digitally for those who wish to use screen readers. Whenever workshops are held, always use microphones instead of relying on the “power of your voice.” Using microphones ensures that you can be understood and heard by everyone, reducing the likelihood that a participant with hearing loss will have to publicly announce their hearing loss in order to hear you or your speakers. Avoid strong scents and perfumes and ask that your event staff do the same. Avoid flashing lights and videos that may cause seizures. Provide descriptive content warnings for any presentations, talks, performances or resources that may trigger vulnerable individuals present (i.e. sexually explicit images, content related to any kind of violence or abuse).

Honor Everyone’s Boundaries. Take care of yourself; listen to your physical, mental, and emotional needs and limits; express and honor your boundaries as you deem necessary. Listen and ask others what they need should an issue arise. If someone is asking you for support, do your best to help them find a resource or solution. Always ask consent prior to photographing or recording fellow participants for any reason Always ask consent before making any physical contact with event attendees, volunteers, and staff. Honor the personal spaces of all, and never assume touching someone’s hair, for example, or imposing on anyone’s personal space is welcome.

Confront Harassment and Reduce Harm. Remember that unacceptable behavior includes but is not limited to:

making offensive comments related to any personal characteristic or identity;

deliberate intimidation, stalking, following;

harassing photography or recording; photographing and recording someone for any reason without first acquiring their consent ;

continued disruption of Art+Feminism presenters, talks, or performances;

disrespecting the physical, mental, and emotional space of others; touching a person, their hair, or their belongings without consent; not listening when boundaries are stated;

unwelcome, deliberate physical contact or attention (including touching a person’s hair without consent);

physical and/or verbal threats to any person or group;

Participants instructed to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. This applies to everyone, including event staff and sponsors.

Make Your Support and Safety Team Visible. All support and safety staff should wear identifying badges, t-shirts, lanyards, or lapels at all times so they can be contacted if there is an issue. Make yourself and your assigned team members available to hold any and all offenders accountable. Be brave.

Create a plan in advance for what the protocol will be should someone be on the giving or receiving end of harmful or toxic behavior during your event.

Provide information for event staff such as a local sexual assault hotline, emergency and non-emergency medical resources, taxi companies, etc. Make this information publicly visible.

Embrace Your Mistakes, Then, Move Forward. We are all learning and unlearning. We will make mistakes. When we do, it’s our responsibility to admit, correct, and repair the harm. Embracing our mistakes cannot be done in a spirit of defensiveness. To confront our own biases requires accepting the fact that we are imperfect and like everyone else internalize harmful biases and stereotypes about marginalized communities and identities. Do not center yourself or your mistake as you work to repair the harm in any given situation and listen to the needs of those who were harmed.

Be Brave in Holding Others Accountable, Then, Move Forward. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, you are encouraged to engage in a conversation with those involved, if you feel safe and comfortable doing so. If you do not feel safe doing so, or a conversation does not solve the issue, please contact a member of event staff immediately.

Event staff and fellow participants should express compassion and understanding when helping those being harassed or harmed contact venue support and safety; avoid intentionally or unintentionally placing blame on the person being harassed and instead show them we value them by taking action to solve the issue, provide escorts, or otherwise assisting them in feeling safer for the duration of the event. Don’t leave them to deal with this alone.

If a participant engages in harassing or oppressive behavior, the event organizers may take action they deem appropriate, including having a conversation with that person, warning the offender, or expulsion from the event.

Remember that our communities are only brave and sustainable so long as we are willing to hold each other accountable for our actions, and we are willing to be held accountable when we make mistakes. Conflict is a natural part of the process. We are here to make progress, not to be perfect.}}

:* meta:Grants:Friendly Space Policies

:: {{cquote|The Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for everyone at all venues and events - such as conferences, virtual events, and related social events - that this policy applies to regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, age, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, national origin, or religion—and not limited to these aspects. We do not tolerate any form of harassment of conference participants. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue or talks. Any participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference at the discretion of the conference organizers.

Harassment includes but is not limited to offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, age, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, national origin, or religion. Harassment also includes sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.

If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the conference. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of conference staff immediately. Conference staff can be identified by special badges.

Staff will be happy to help participants contact hotel/venue security or local law enforcement, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value your attendance.

Organizers: Contact information will be publicized to event participants on a per-event basis. Local phone numbers for hotel/venue security, local law enforcement, local sexual assault hotline, local emergency and non-emergency medical, and local taxi company to be publicized to event participants as appropriate on a per-event basis.

We expect participants to follow these rules at Wikimedia Foundation venues and events - such as conferences, virtual events, and related social events - that this policy applies to.}}

:* https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Category:Friendly_spaces

::{{cquote|Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face standard mainstream stereotypes and marginalisation, or in which a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate in the space.}}

::

:* https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Safe_space

:* wikimania:Friendly space policy

::{{cquote|The Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to providing a harassment-free venue and conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, age, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, national origin, or religion—and not limited to these aspects. We do not tolerate any form of harassment of conference participants. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue or talks. Any participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference at the discretion of the conference organizers.

Harassment includes but is not limited to offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, age, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, national origin, or religion. Harassment also includes sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.

If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the conference. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of conference staff immediately. Conference staff can be identified by special badges.

Staff will be happy to help participants contact hotel/venue security or local law enforcement, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value your attendance.

Organizers: Contact information will be publicized to event participants on a per-event basis. Local phone numbers for hotel/venue security, local law enforcement, local sexual assault hotline, local emergency and non-emergency medical, and local taxi company to be publicized to event participants as appropriate on a per-event basis. We expect participants to follow these rules at Wikimedia Foundation venues, all conference venues, and conference-related social events.}}

:* meta:Friendly space policies

::{{cquote|General friendly space policy for Wikimedia events

The Wikimedia community is dedicated to providing a welcoming experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, appearance, race, religion, or preferred free license (and not limited to those aspects). We do not tolerate harassment of event participants. Participants violating these rules may be asked to leave the event at the discretion of the event organizers.

Definition of harassment

Harassment includes:

Offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, or religion.

Deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events.

Non-contextual display of sexual images, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

Participants asked to stop such behavior are expected to comply immediately.

Corrective actions:

As Wikimedia community events are managed by volunteers, event organizers depend on all attendees for help in maintaining the Friendly Space Policy. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of event staff immediately.

If organizers are concerned about the conduct of an individual, or receive a complaint, they may take action appropriate to the situation. This can include a private warning to the person concerned; in more serious cases it may be necessary to ask them to leave. In cases of stalking, event staff may be able to provide escorts.

Individuals with a pattern of harassing behavior, or who threaten to harass individuals or disrupt an event, may be asked not to attend.

Any concerns with the implementation of this policy should be raised with the organizers of the event in the first instance, or with the larger Wikimedia community as desired.

Contact Information:

To help attendees stay safe and get in touch when there is an emergency, it is useful to list the following contact numbers:

The event organizers (ideally a 24-h number)

Local hotel/venue security

Local law enforcement

Local sexual assault hotline

Local emergency and non-emergency medical services

Local taxi company}}

:EllenCT (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:{{Re|Phil Bridger}} how do you feel about the prohibition in meta:Celtic Knot Conference 2020/Friendly Space Policy#Behaviour that will not be tolerated against "unwanted photography or recording"? EllenCT (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

::I was unaware that the possibility existed of anyone photographing me or recording me over the Internet while I am editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:::Ha! I plan to make a table of prohibitions, so that the various friendly space policies can be compared. EllenCT (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

::::You might also be interested in User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch, which was an attempt at a safe space for female-identifying editors. It largely failed when the creator was sitebanned (unrelated), and also due to rampant misogyny, but maybe that's improved in 2020? (don't @ me, I know it hasn't) It had been deleted at the creator's request before she was banned, but it was restored not long afterwards at someone else's request. I was about to tag it with {{tl|historical}} since it hasn't been substantively edited since 20 March 2015, but in the spirit of the original space it would be better for a female-identifying editor to take care of that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:::::I'm hoping to propose general solutions transcending all the different kinds of harassment issues. A general monitoring system to illustrate apparent strategy and tactics of any set of editors suspected of perpetuating bias might be a toolset we could build later on in this area. I'm reluctant because something like that could be used to exaggerate evidence and could turn into a weapon in arms races, so it's probably better to keep humans in that loop. Maybe I can wait for the hegemony. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h9sl3rhMow],

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv7Wbom2alE],

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRT2ma4a4c]. EllenCT (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Diversity/9#Terms of Use for the WMF by de:Benutzer:Tinz which was approved around 45-0:

{{cquote|* The WMF must respect the fundamental principles of the projects (:en:Wikipedia:Five_pillars, :fr:Wikipédia:Principes_fondateurs, :de:Wikipedia:Grundprinzipien,...). It will not attempt to change them against the will of the communities or act against their spirit.

• The WMF has the role of a facilitator, not a leader. There are many independent projects that are self-governed, only restricted by a limited set of global policies. In particular, each project is free to independently decide whether to implement strategic goals set by the WMF or ignore them. This is necessary to sustain diversity among the different projects.
• The WMF will not interfere with the decision processes of the local projects unless this is required by law or to enforce a restricted set of rules that does not considerably exceed the current set of global policies.
• The WMF recognizes that it is, by far, less diverse than the different communities representing all cultures of the world. It will not attempt to impose their notions of civility upon the communities with very diverse cultural backgrounds in the form of a central "code of conduct".}}

I agree that it has to be a two-way street, and I think this says that well. EllenCT (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Many if not most may see me topic banned from this request. EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)}}

I'd like to see a thermometer-style meter template describing how many organized advocacy attempts have been uncovered in the previous month, perhaps in comparison to whether they are still active. EllenCT (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:Like I said below, I think this proposal is out of scope for a discussion on solutions to harassment. Unless the point is to prevent harassment of the paid editors? To the point, though: this would be difficult to measure. Do we go by how many editors are blocked for undisclosed paid editing? Maybe we count WP:G11 deletions? And I also don't know how we would track whether or not the operations are still active: in the present era it seems the large firms have been supplanted by individual freelancers working through sites like Fiverr and Upwork, though it may also be that the firms are just outsourcing the work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{re|Ivanvector}} Are you saying that corporations can't harass individuals? I know someone who works at Upwork.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smallbones&oldid=969166988#The_recently_closed_near_unanimous_call_for_action] EllenCT (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:::Not at all. I'm saying I don't understand how the issue with paid advocacy ties in with harassment of editors on Wikipedia. In my mind, someone (be it a person or a group or a corporation) who comes here seeking to create a promotional article in exchange for payment from a third party may be violating our terms of service, but they're not inherently harassing anyone. Harassment by our policy's definition is "a pattern of repeated offensive behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons [...] to make the target feel threatened or intimidated." I don't see how paid advocacy, on its own, meets this definition. Perhaps there is a phenomenon of paid editors targeting specific Wikipedia editors to intimidate them that I'm just not familiar with? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

::::It absolutely happens. We missed the tobacco splurge, but have you seen the history of our articles on fracking, or climate change in general?

{{hat|1=I am likely topic banned from this observation. EllenCT (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)}}

::: We've had admitted paid advocacy factions openly battling on each each side for vaping, too. There are so many more examples, but I've asked people to list their own in the "request for examples" above. EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Many of these already occur, thanks to researchers being members of the WikiProjects they are interested in. However, in some topics the factions dominant on Wikipedia are not the factions dominant in the field. More often than not, Wikipedia has made the correct choice in such cases. This is because astroturf is a thing, and monied interests are capable of biasing the literature in many cases. EllenCT (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

:The problem of bias is very different to harassment. Every editor has some kind of bias, so we cannot count editing with bias in itself as harassment. However a biased editor may be harassing others, eg by inappropriately nominating a biased class of articles for deletion. Extremely zealous campaigners are more likely to be at risk of harassment. I think that harassment solutions will be covering different kinds of solutions to dealing with systematic bias, otherwise the scope here will be too big. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

::Bias harasses the readers, which reflects poorly on the editors and thus harasses them indirectly. I can see no bright line distinction between the sorts of organized advocacy to mislead for political and economic purposes. EllenCT (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In the few of these I know about (and I don't think there have been many more, but I've lost track of everything at all the chapters) it's not clear the Foundation intentionally paid for the initial work or simply added funds to expand what otherwise would have been an insufficiently sized study, covering total costs in one case. I'm still studying these, with the caveat that I'm not exactly sure how to define them because some activities may qualify marginally.

My thoughts on this are, let's figure out how to draft the request for proposals and then figure out who can administer and pay for it most effectively. Maybe a grad student needs a Ph.D. somewhere and some other foundation would pay their stipend and tuition if they took it up instead of the Foundation. EllenCT (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of asking the Foundation for help with bias issues, what if there was a way to get for-profit companies to sponsor a fund that pays for such studies? EllenCT (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we leverage the data in WP:BACKLOG for this? EllenCT (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

:Perhaps this could show up tag bombing against particular users' pages. But there will still be a distinction between harassment, over enthusiasm and identifying valid problems where a human would have to assess. Most of this backlog would not be in controversial topics. Controversial topic pages would generate a lot more loss of temper and overreaction, but also would have a lot of editors, so the pages probably won't stay in any backlog for long. Perhaps the pages marked with arbcom sanctions could somehow be monitored with some automation. But how is the harassment manifest? Perhaps edit summaries, reverting or undoing a particular editor's work, stalking, or inserting text that is harassment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

::I was suggesting using the conflict article templates, but you suggest those need to be supplemented with information from the user talk page warning templates, as well. I'm working on it, but ... slowly. EllenCT (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

These are roughly in reverse chronological order for now:

• New tools like WP:LOOP ([http://doublecheck.wikiloop.org/feed/mix try it]; Signpost discussion) and others are fascinating to me, but they need to be discussed because implementation decisions (of which there are very many) made poorly can cause a net negative impact, sometimes without advance warning before a long-term fault is discovered and needs extensive cleanup.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Detox#Dumb] It's also unclear whether they can be deliberately misused by those involved in harassment disputes.
• Other mw:ORES and pre-ORES edit (recent changes, watchlist, WP:LOOP) and article (new and otherwise) review tools. Note that these have become completely integrated with most major Wikipedias.
• The original [https://citationhunt.toolforge.org/en Citation Hunt]
• [https://aiko-citationhunt.toolforge.org/en Ai-Jou 'Aiko' Chou's AI-enhanced version] which tries to predict where {{tl|citation needed}} tags would most likely occur (whether they are already there or not? Source [https://github.com/AikoChou/citationhunt code repository.])
• mw:Accuracy review (down)
• WikiRank ([https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10745704916736397875&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en recent citations]) like WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY this tries to meet reader demand for underrepresented topics
• WikiBlame (e.g. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06885] and [https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.09688] for current uses)
• Wikiscanner (down)
• m:Research:Quarry, or just the MediaWiki database/dumps as a data source in general ([https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/1337 example])

I will need some time to complete this list. EllenCT (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I added this section because the RfC that inspired this one was being run by Arbcom, but I'm not sure it's necessary. If people just edit normally to improve accuracy while aware of harassment issues, that will likely work even better than sanctions. Living well is the best revenge. EllenCT (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

:This strikes me as sort of a "don't feed the trolls" argument, which in context of harassment is a problematic form of victim blaming. Should you not react to harassment? Maybe, but that doesn't forgive our duty as a community to create an environment free of it to the best of our ability. That most certainly includes showing problematic editors the door. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

::Agreed; I meant, I doubt whether there is any need for new sanctioning proposals as long as we get the sunlight we need in the right places to figure out who best to sanction under existing rules. EllenCT (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:By introducing more sanctions it is also risking making a more toxic editing environment, that enables more threats to be made, whether justified or not. I think we have to concentrate on stopping the harassment, rather than trying to identify behavior which perpetuate bias. For example an editor has only ever created articles on men. Is this perpetuating systematic bias of Wikipedia? Probably yes, but in it self the work is not bad. Instead we have to make the place more welcome for people that want to edit in other ways that fill in the holes in Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia will be "biased" due to the presence of bias in reliable published material. I have found that classing some kinds of sources as unreliable (eg magazines for women) results in a deficiency of certain topics here. But I think it is outside the scope for harassment solutions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

::I think, in a roundabout way, it's not out of scope. A very significant problem for Wikipedia is systemic bias, which is unintentionally perpetuated because (as WP:SYSTEMICBIAS says) we tend to attract an average editor who fits a specific demographic, and that demographic tends to be socially privileged, and that creates a sort of power imbalance in the editing environment. SYSTEMICBIAS also cites reliable statistics that female-identifying editors tend to leave Wikipedia much earlier and much more frequently than male editors, and of course they do: we're quite a hostile environment to anyone who doesn't have the average editor's experience of oppressive power structures, and the average editor is nearly always on top in those imbalances. Many anti-harassment discussions I've participated in have had a significant proportion of (male) editors opposing changes for reasons similar to "you have to expect some abuse on the internet", and that's just so wrong if we don't want this to be the White American Male Wikipedia. "Getting sunlight in the right places" is a very good analogy, I'll use civility enforcement as an example: all too often the community accepts gross incivility from editors deemed to be "doing the right thing" (defending articles from POV pushers and paid editors, usually) but this attitude of accepting the "right rudeness" just perpetuates the toxic environment that keeps potentially valuable editors away, and editor retention is really our most serious existential threat. I know a number of female-identifying academics who I've approached over the years for input on articles in their areas of expertise, and nearly every one has declined the invitation specifically because of the personal and professional risk of exposing themselves to Wikipedia's toxic editing community. The other related problem is that we let too many editors get away with too many things until their behaviour gets so bad we have no choice but to ban them, and they take a bunch of people with them because those discussions are so dramatic and factionalized. This was a lot of words I know, but to come back around to your point: we can't make the place more welcome for people who want to fill in the holes if we continue shrugging at these serious problems. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussions may include critiques of a not necessarily constructive nature (e.g., "2nd choice," etc.)

{{Notice|1=See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=968994078#Proposed_supplemental_anti-harassment_RFC_outline here] for more information. EllenCT (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}}

Sorry for creating a new section that might break your structure; please feel free to move my comment to whichever section you think is most appropriate, but I did not see an obvious place for general comments. It seems to me that many of the items under "constructive solutions" are not addressing harassment directly or at all. For example, a code of conduct in the terms of use is a good thing to discuss in terms of addressing ongoing issues with harassment, I'm excited to see that discussion. However, a number of these go into detail on studying and perpetuating bias, and while I can see a link between "Wikipedia suffers systemic bias" and "Wikipedia users suffer harassment", it's a very weak and tangential link, at least to me. We don't solve harassment by solving bias; while some conflicts over perceived or systemic bias may lead to harassment, we could say the same for any sort of conflict. Then we get to the points on remedying paid editing and partnerships with for-profit entities, which just aren't related to harassment at all. They're issues for sure, but we're not trying to solve everything here. Maybe I just can't tell where you're going with those proposals but it will become apparent after further discussion? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

:Yes, I do intend to add other proposals I've been thinking of and specify the ones that I've already listed. Thank you for making this section. EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC. The statement, whilst brief, tells us absolutely nothing about the issue and merely requests a change to the normal duration. {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines|prev|969000893|This is how it looks}} to the outside world. Please observe WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC(Invited by the bot) I agree with the above comments that this is so confused and is missing so much that it is currently invalid. Further, I think that it is overall mis-cast. Abuse of editors is certainly a huge problem in Wikipedia which needs fixing. Casting is as harassment of editors due to the listed factors is a misfire. Suggesting that you start over. And rename it for the actual problem which is abuse of editors. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

::Good idea; thank you! EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• EllenCT, please could you de-list this RfC, provide the neutral summary Redrose64 asks for, add the proposals you've thought of, and then reopen it?—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{done}} Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I recommend that this RfC be de-listed until the ArbCom RfC is concluded and ArbCom enacts any changes that it intends to based on it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{done}} Thanks! I like your style. EllenCT (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{re|L235}} Kevin, are there any reasons this should remain delisted pending closure of the private evidence RfC? EllenCT (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

:::{{re|EllenCT}} Hi Ellen, thanks for the ping. There are a couple reasons why I think this should be delisted pending resolution of the RfC:

:::*The outcome of the ArbCom RfC might change the baseline of what participants perceive as the current state of policy, which will affect what kinds of proposals they will support.

:::*The outcome of the ArbCom RfC might spur further community action (such as a further clarification of policy) that should be part of this RfC, which means we should wait until those ideas are collected before launching this RfC.

:::*Quite aside from the outcome of the ArbCom RfC, I worry that this RfC has too much going on{{snd}}that it has too many independent parts that aren't strongly related to each other or to harassment. Surely all of them have {{em|some}} relationship with harassment, but there are hundreds of proposals that are {{em|more}} related to harassment than e.g. {{tq|1=Pilot projects to automate peer review-like processes to monitor bias on controversial topics}}. I understand that you're trying to start a conversation here and this is just a first step, but I wonder if this is not focused enough to result in a meaningful consensus. I'd be happy to talk more personally about this concern, even over a Zoom call or something, if you'd like.

:::Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

::::{{re|L235}} Thanks, Kevin. I think the first two reasons are completely reasonable, and agree with aspects of the third. I don't want to focus too tightly on either economically or politically motivated harassment to the detriment of treating both, but I {{tl|hat}}-ed the example Codes of Conduct as there is a new committee trying to draft a universal version. I still feel strongly that I should make the table of prohibitions to review whether any of those which may be promulgated could affect non-in person editing with Scunthorpe effects and the like. I have added some examples of review-like processes and am adding more. EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)