Wikipedia talk:Identity-based harassment

Let's start with a proposal we can probably all agree on :)
As a compound adjective, are there objections to moving the page to Identity-based harassment? (with a hyphen)? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 03:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Add background
Anyone think it would be worthwhile to add a background section, with the Gamergate, and ARBGGTF stuff, and statistics on harassment on Wikipedia? Just a thought. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 03:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Ceradon, I do not believe that these would enhance the policy. I am more inclined to think that they would be at some stage misinterpreted as being part of the policy. But I would be interested to see the statistics, if you have a link. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Duplicated sections from WP:HARASSMENT
Without implying support or opposition for the new policy, there are a number of sections which appear to be direct replicas of corresponding sections from WP:HARASSMENT (Off-wiki harassment; Dealing with harassment). Replicating these here, where they are subject to independent change, introduces issues of versioning & consistency of policy & policy outcomes. Is it possible for these to be included by reference to that, more general, policy? If not by wikilink, then by transclusion? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will work on summarizing the "Dealing with harassment" section tomorrow, with elements already included in Harassment. Further, I want to add a "What the policy is not" section. For instance, it shouldn't be trump card that you can throw around and have a discussion turn your way. Thank you, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 05:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Just checking
As I understand it, this is being put forward as a current policy, not a proposed policy, because the various pieces of it are already policy - mostly taken straight from WP:Harass. The definitions look newish to me, but I think they are straightforward and shouldn't cause any problem with this interpretation.

If this is not being put forward as current policy, we would have a bit more leeway in creating or modifying the text, but we would also have to go through a long RfC.

There is a glaring omission in the text. We should add "Identity-based harassment is prohibited" (or perhaps the exact wording now in WP:Harass). There is a prohibition in the 2nd paragraph "Retaliation by administrators and other editors for raising an allegation of identity-based harassment, or for opposing harassing practices is prohibited," but retaliation, a form of second-level harassment, is not the same as the original harassment or harassment in general.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 11:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a summary of WP:HA's explicit statement of prohibition. "Identity-based harassment of any user, even those who have been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, is prohibited as incompatible with Wikipedia's civility policy and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia." did include a line which said, "identity-based harassment ... is especially prohibited on Wikipedia" that I removed while reorienting that paragraph here -- largely because WP:HA communicates the prohibition without mentioning it in the lead. But, of course, this article doesn't also mirror the section that does make it explicit, so good point. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding proposed policy vs. current policy, I also wonder what the best way to treat this is. Per Ceradon's close, there is consensus for this policy to exist. But that doesn't mean there's consensus for the way it should be worded and presented. Speaking just for myself, when I expressed my support, I wouldn't have imagined I was supporting a separate policy that just adds a few words and summarizes the rest (for that, it seemed like it would make the most sense to just add to the existing article and create some sensible shortcuts/redirects). Assuming it's meant to be developed considerably, maybe it would be best to proceed as though this were a new article about a controversial current event (not literally, but with the same degree of care and collaboration with an acknowledgment there's still much to be done). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is consensus for this to exist. I wanted to make the wording as uncontroversial as possible, so I used established definitions of various forms of harassment. This is, of course, a work in progress. I would like to summarize the "Dealing with harassment" section, and add a "What this policy is not" section. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We have to be very careful here. Either this is a) being put forward as current policy (as the tag at the top of the policy states), or b) it is a new policy.  It can't be both.  If we choose a, then nothing new can be added (though pure definitions are likely ok). B) is perhaps the ultimate goal, and this page can serve as the focus of the discussions encouraged by ArbCom on this issue.
 * I'll suggest that we make an effort to simply summarize current policy, then hold a short RfC - a week perhaps - on the sole question of "Does this text adequately summarize the current policy on identity-based harassment?" (no proposed changes to policy allowed at this point). If that passes, then this will be a real policy, and we can proceed to update it, if needed, in the usual way.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Atheism
The current wording "based on that editor's religion", would limit religious harassment to only protect people who have a religion. If we rephrased it as "based on that editor's religious views", or better still "based on that editor's religious or philosophical views", then we would close that loophole.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think adding "philosophical views" would invite endless problems. Still, it's a good point. Maybe something closer to "religion or irreligion" to keep it narrower? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Religion and irreligion" sounds much better. Technically, someone believing that Black people being evil because the color "black" is often associated with evil is a "philosophical view". I don't want people to be cover their asses with that. --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about denomination? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I don't think denomination would help. "based on that editor's religious denomination" is about a specific religious group or cult that an editor belongs to, so it would continue to leave out atheists and agnostics but also leave out non-denominational Christians, people who are "not religious just spiritual" and various others whose religious views don't accord with a particular denomination. You could even argue it removes protection from people who subscribe to a particular denomination but can be argued not to follow all of its tenets. "Based on that editor's religion or irreligion" would be OK but clunky, and would probably annoy some by giving as much space to irreligion as religion. If people don't like the short version "based on that editor's religious views", how about "based on that editor's views on religion". Confining things to one's view on religion should exclude nonreligious racism, but include all views on religion, including disbelief.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To "try" to use an argument that some exception exists or that some view was not presented as a defense against personal attacks (covered with Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia), harassment (covered with The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians, or civility (covered with Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians., Even bullying (covered with is the act of using the Wikipedia system and the power of editing to threaten or intimidate "other people"., We need to be careful not to give examples that can not actually "ever" be possible unless someone would like to argue that an editor holding a position (can't say belief right) of Atheism is not considered an editor, a Wikipedian, or this person would not be considered "people". The examples of relevant policies and guidelines covers all the examples provided, and all the ones that were not, because Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia covers that as well as nonreligious, not religious just spiritual, irreligion, or a black "person". I am just saying that we can "over do" things trying to be "too correct". Someone trying to cover their asses with this form of defense would be in violation of several other policies and guidelines to include possible sanctions for Disruptive editing. Otr500 (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing "Dealing with harassment"
I would like comment from others on whether this adequately summarizes the "Dealing with harassment section". It very much resembles the existing text, but reorganized. Any tidying up needed, etc.? Thank you, --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 02:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationality and National Origin
I added nationality and national origin to the policy. In some areas of editing conflict, such as the Balkans, making insulting comments about the nationality of an editor is a common offense, and is a form of identity harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy versus guideline

 * I like a lot of the wording but I can not support this essay as presented to be future policy. I have been subjected to bullying and harassment that involved a police officer and him placing a gun in my mouth. It was a "LONG" drawn out affair that involved the FBI and I moved for protection. I was vindicated but not without mental anguish. I have read the figures (and commented on them with source) concerning teens committing suicide from on-line bullying. Any attacks, that lead to harassment, is bad. I use the word "egregious" (used elsewhere) to elevate any very serious and shocking attack or harassment to clearly define what might be considered an emergency needing critically fast action.
 * FYI -- Many attacks, that amount to Wiki-bullying, lead to harassment, that would be a second or more attack. WP:CIVILITY states "In cases of repeated harassment", and this essays states "when that behavior is so egregious or persistent". The legal definition of harassment is; n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group. We need to try to limit adding words that "add" amounts to quantify harassment. Harassment is intrinsic with "more than once", so this would be like saying "déjà vu, all over again". Unless we are actually wanting to add "IF an editor is continually (means more than once also) harassed many times.


 * That is just some advice.


 * I just can not support making a policy to fit "each" of the cases listed, race, gender, religion (religious views or lack thereof), nationality or national origin, age or disability, are covered) but bullying is not nor others. A WP:Harassment policy, and this as a guideline, could have as much force as a separate policy covering each. I think I have sound suggestions that are still viable.


 * Classify (elevate, whatever) this to a WP:Harassment guideline or a specific instruction page, and at the same time;
 * Raise WikiBullying to a guideline or information page, whichever would be considered the higher to augment policy.
 * Get in on a discussion to make an information page for a Core Conduct policies to tie WP:Civility, WP:Harassment, and WP:No personal attacks together, so they can work in conjunction and augment each other and "apply to all Wikimedia projects" including editors, with this being in full agreement with the Wikipedia Foundation's WP:Non discrimination policy.


 * Another issue concerning redundancy. We have a section Assistance for administrators being harassed and a subsection Reactions to harassment, as exact copies from a policy page to this essay. There is "see also" or "main" to point to these without this. We give so much to allowing Admin "bailing" on an issue. I can pretty much assure anyone that an admin (even a new one) will know or learn he or she can "bail" without consequence. I suggest an automatic 24 hour precautionary protection block (ban) and/or topic ban with automatic reporting to WP:ArbCom. This will give admins ease of mind of any possible complaints or attacks on admins, and remove the issue from a single admin, negating fears of Admin abuse. As protection in case of any block or ban we need to mention about an appeal (BASC).
 * I would like to know the aversion to mentioning the possibility of blocks or bans for serious (egregious) violations of policy. Identity harassment, specifically outrageous or vulgar language, that targets any of the above cases, to include belittling, degrading, severely insulting, hurtful, or sexual in nature, that might surely cause anguish, needs to be addressed aggressively, and as fast as possible, to stem any possible permanent harm. We "must" treat a complaint seriously, take expedited steps to contain things, and then find a solution that will protect victims, as well as any wrongly accused, while allowing enhancement of Wikipedia.
 * I would love to be on board ( as a guideline) and help effect change so I hope consideration/corrections, and comments will be given concerning my suggestions. Otr500 (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting this back on track
I very much agree with most of the comments above by, especially:
 * we should limit the definitions to a very simple statement like "Racial harassment is unwanted or threatening contact that appears to be based on the target's race". We don't need the repeated "repeated" and piling on additional requirements (thus weakening the definitions).
 * We can keep this shorter and to the point, e.g. we don't need to repeat instructions to admins who are harassed.

The original proposal seemed to be that this was just a summation of things that were already policy - thus it would be considered policy itself as soon as it was completely written. I'd suggest that we stick to that goal and not try to change or add anything that's not already policy. Minor corrections like "or the absence of religion" can wait for now. I still suggest a one-week RfC to confirm that this is policy. Thus I'd like to add the "Proposed policy" tag to the page, and will by tomorrow unless I see any major objections here.

A couple of other editors have combined to reduce the tag from "Policy" to "Essay." I disagree with that - this has always been a page to formulate or summarize policy. I suggest that we let those who wish to write a policy do their thing here, and those who wish to write an essay do their thing on another page. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with the  tag, but when it is deemed finished by "those who wish to write a policy", it needs to be brought before the community to ensure consensus exists for it per WP:PROPOSAL. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 22:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When we say "always" that makes it sound like a very long time. I was under the impression this was a "new page" created from a closed "Sexual harassment policy" attempt and noted as needing to be addressed.
 * I can appreciate your views (@ Smallbones) and I am 100% committed to improvements that effect protection, I can support a guideline, an appendage, an information page, or whatever would make this an extension of the "harassment" policy. I am passionate in a quest that we need to prevent atrocities of civility against fellow editors, as well as protection for admins, and protection from abuse. I am just as passionate in opposition to singling out one form of serious attack as more important than any other equally serious, or opening a door for the possibility of the bureaucracy of future editors, seeking to appease their particular agenda, with yet another policy of specificity. An attack, by any other name, is still an attack. Harassment, by any other name, is still harassment. Harassment involves persistent attacks, as does bullying, and both would be considered (to me) more severe than simple harassment. By making "more" and separate "regulations" it tends to dumb down existing ones and creates confusion. I just still can not imagine why, except for the sake of show, would it be important to elevate one form of serious (egregious) harassment (attack) as more severe or egregious as another one that is equally egregious, especially when all forms could be covered in sections in the appropriate policy. Blows my mind.
 * An example is that harassment, be it sexual in nature, identity-based, or bullying, is an attack and abuse. We have chosen to separate continued attacks (harassment) to a separate policy. Bullying, another attack that often leads to harassment and to those affected horrendous, is just an essay. Editors are echoing "too many policies" or "we need to consolidate and cut down on things. That is not what I see as presented here. We can just as easily consolidate as we can expand and separate. Everyone here knows that the Wikipedia community supports and uses guidelines as an extension and expansion of policy. Ensure general coverage in the harassment policy and have a guideline for specifics. That has been the norm and a specific guideline would carry the weight of a long established policy already in force. I would think a specific guideline would also pass consensus more easily. If we did that we could move on to things such as editing articles. I guess that would be a problem for any of us wishing to practice bureaucracy building.
 * What I don't see happening is a logical argument why a specific separate policy is better than an expansion of existing policy. We have redundancy here, in order to consolidate information from existing policy to ensure the intent is followed, yet harassment is already a policy. Please see comments above that includes "The original proposal seemed to be that this was just a summation of things that were already policy - thus it would be considered policy itself as soon as it was completely written. I'd suggest that we stick to that goal and not try to change or add anything that's not already policy.". Does that actually not sound like redundancy and a great idea as reason to promote a good guideline if content is already in a policy? A broad community consensus would be needed for any additional policies. Otr500 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that a separate policy is unnecessary, and your closing statement Otr500, that "broad community consensus would be needed for any additional policies". — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)