Wikipedia talk:Sexual harassment

Should this proposal be adopted? 23:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Protections
What protections are built in so these policies are not abused. Often in recent history the claims have been made by multiple editors that they were being harassed because of gender, sexual preference etc. The page says the first offense is an auto block, egregious attacks are always blocked. Who makes the determination of what is actually defined as sexual harassment? Egregious offense I understand completely but after having seen firsthand some of the liberal definitions of harassment it should be clear what it acutlaly is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is an auto block for the accused mentioned? The only thing that is automatically put into place according to my draft is an interaction ban. This is on the basis that if someone says "you're sexually harassing me" you should probably leave them the fuck alone. Also to answer your other question. Administrators, as always, will be the ones primarily determining if a breach in policy has occurred. --ScWizard (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See [], it states there is no warnings and blocked for first offense. Ok so individual admin will review it, what is the criteria for consensus on what those boundaries here? I've seen admin some pretty flimsy claims of sexism, harrassment and gender discrimination when in fact they were not. I was once accused of this for a comment that said "cunt, queer and nigger" and not directed at anybody at all but an exercise of use mention. SO all it takes is one person to say you are disagreeing with me because I'm gay, trans gendered, or gender and boom all of a sudden boom someone is blocked for SH. The potential for abuse is huge. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That part might be a good part to change. I'm not sure how frequently editors are wrongfully sanctioned. If it's a frequent occurrence than a block on the first offense might be overly harsh. However I'm strongly against a warning on the first offense. An admin saying "we agree that this person is sexually harassing you, but we're not going to do anything other than warning them" creates a scary environment for victims. Also to me (who doesn't edit very often) a 24 hour block is very light punishment I think, especially for something as serious as sexual harassment. 24 hours can disappear very quickly playing video games or going downtown. --ScWizard (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In legit cases of harassment the hammer should be fairly severe in my opinion. I just don't like seeing good things being abused. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm totally fine with the removal of any mention of "mandatory minimums." Looking at other policy pages none of them mention this type of thing. Even though outing is a quickfast way to get indefed in practice, there's no mention that it will likely incur harsher punishment than name calling. On that note it looks like another editor already did the honor of removing that section, so less work for me. --ScWizard (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seemed like a no-brainer to take it out. We know from all the contentious Gamergate stuff how slippery the slope can be between honest reporting, issue advocacy, philosophical differences in article writing, and harassment.  No matter how you try to define sexual harassment there are going to be a lot of cases right on the edge, so taking away the admins' ability to warn people seems like a sabotage.  Anything written up here ultimately has to face consensus, so anything nearly this dubious has to be thrown out to have a chance of getting a text that goes anywhere. Wnt (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 'What protections are built in so [this is] not abused?' That's the key question. A response like following certainly fails to address it: 'if someone says "you're sexually harassing me" you should probably leave them the fuck alone.' On Wikipedia that's a recipe for WP:GAMING the system. Any time you want to win an editing dispute, claim you're being harassed. It would be too easy to entrap people this way. Get in a heated argument with them on some page, then contribs-stalk them until they edit an article on a woman, and goad them into an editwar, lacing edit summaries with subtle hints they may have a bias, as soon as they say something testy, run to your favorite pet admin and claim you feel harassed.  If this page's ideas were taken seriously, all burden of proof would be on the accused.  'Also to me (who doesn't edit very often) ...' I'm skeptical that an only-occasional editor can accurately assess the editing community's processes and consensus on an issue like this. 'anything nearly this dubious has to be thrown out to have a chance of getting a text that goes anywhere.' I've posted alternative proposals in later thread to address some of this inaccurate-reading-of-the-community problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does this proposed policy imply that other forms of harassment are somehow less objectionable?
The 'no warnings' section in particular seems to imply that 'Ordinary cases of wiki hounding and other harassment' are somehow less objectionable by default - why? What is it about harassment on the basis of gender, sexuality etc that makes it inherently worse than harassment on the basis of ethnicity, 'race', nationality, faith, political beliefs or anything else? What exactly is it about sexual harassment that requires special rules, and specific prescribed sanctions? It seems to me that an over-specific policy is being proposed without actually explaining why it is needed. If there is a general problem with harassment on Wikipedia, the solution surely is to look for general solutions, rather than writing policies to cover specific instances. Apart from anything else, it is an invitation to Wikilawyering, and is liable to encourage endless debates over exactly what form of harassment is occurring, rather than actually tackling harassment itself. Harassment of contributors is wrong, regardless of its focus - and needs to be sanctionable accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sexually harassment casues more harm than other forms of harassment. It's a more serious offense. That's why governments and workplaces generally have policies regarding sexual harassment in particular. You can read about the devastating effects of sexual harassment here: As well as many other places. There's a wide body of literature that makes it clear that sexual harassment is particularly harmful and serious. --ScWizard (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . As a victim of serious off site harassment that was not related to my gender I can tell you that non-sexual harassment can be pretty damn damaging and is not less serious. Chillum 00:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No kidding. That was seriously one of most offensive things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. No hyperbole. I can't believe someone wrote that in public. The crushing racism that hampers and limits the lives of tens of millions of Americans alone, of both sexes and all ages, simply because their skin's darker, that's trivial compared to some gynophobic quotient of males being douchebags out of insecurity or outright misogyny?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you even have the remotest clue as to how offensive that ridiculous generalisation is? Was Kristallnacht less offensive because the Nazis harassed Jews regardless of gender? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That went godwin real fast. I'm not going to bother responding any further. I'll just reiterate that I believe sexual harassment is more serious than other forms of harassment, and I'm extremely confident a vast majority of editors share that view. --ScWizard (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that the majority of Wikipedia contributors share your simplistic perspectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Because I picture this ending up as a paragraph in WP:Harassment, the real issue isn't whether this is worse than other forms of harassment, but how it is different and whether any special considerations should be taken. The OP came up with the notions of private reporting and temporary interaction bans - I'm not sure either will be adopted, but they are ideas that can be discussed.  I would add to this that per Gender gap, Wikipedia has known problems in this area that require admins to pay extra attention to try to do better than in the past.  There is also the issue of whether this ties in to the WMF nondiscrimination policy.  Last but not least, some below have pointed out that there is a philosophical contradiction between a policy that is expansively protective of sexual orientation and history while Wikipedia also has a "WP:Child protection" policy that encourages people to dig into the sexual pasts of posters who reveal their real identity.  While it would seem like you can draw a line that pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation and abuse isn't even sex, if you get into the nitty-gritty of Middle Eastern customs you're going to have collisions.  So there's some sifting and winnowing going to be required to try to come up with some fundamental principles that are meaningful, yet not wrong. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well there are words like "serious" in "A serious form of harassment" which imply that other forms are not serious. And indeed much of the page as it stands really says nothing - it's a good attempt, but the concern is that once you take out all the special pleading, (which, after all, is a product of the genderarchy) you end up with "Identity harassment, which is a form of ad-hominem attack, is also not allowed."
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Well put. Special pleading is really the main problem here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should identify in point form what things about sexual harassment are different than regular harassment, and then build prose from that. Are there methods of response that do not apply to regular harassment? What exactly do people want to say about sexual harassment that cannot be said about other forms of harassment? It is not clear to me at all, to me all forms of harassment are already prohibited and sexual harassment is already against existing policy. Lets get it clear what we want to say first and write the paragraphs second. If one of those points is the it is "more serious" than other forms then I think that is a bit insulting to the plight of other people. Chillum 00:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Racking my brain and all I can come up with are these two (I'll leave it to someone else to make them pithy, I'm explaining them here, not just naming them):
 * Tacit social approval: Even in the "liberal" West there's a lingering "boys will be boys" perception, that douchebaggery is normal among males or a class of males who "aren't all bad". In the the last 20-ish years it's been re-reinforced (having declined some since the 1950s) by certain "beeotch"-leaning subcultures like rap, hip-hop, the electronic music scene, in Internet porn world, the gaming community, pop music videos, etc., etc., that objectifies women, and worse, objectifies them negatively. This leads to some level of (implicit or increasingly explicit) social approval of d-bag males, and pooh-poohing the concerns of harassed (and raped or otherwise abused) women and girls. There's no comparable wink-wink-nudge nudge going on that it's "cool" again to tell racist jokes, or make fun of handicapped children, or pick on Jews, or whatever. The only vaguely comparable thing is tacit social approvable of anti-Islamic sentiment in the West after 9/11.  I won't get into the plight of women in more oppressive cultures; that's not a "sexual harassment" but something much more serious, of which sexual harassment is a pale shadow.
 * There's an obvious biological basis for it. We're primates not deities.  Males are  more prone to aggressive physical behavior, aggressive verbal behavior (the distinction is much less marked there, but real), competitive behavior (ditto), risk-taking, and other behaviors that translate into a propensity for rash, inappropriate behavior that can be interpreted as hostile or threatening (whether intended that way or not). This is reinforced by, on average, about 60% more upper-body strength and notably greater mass (sexual dimorphism), and with a genetic, biological imperative that is hard for some to control to "sow the seed", i.e. to see women as things to get, primarily providers of sexual services. Whether consciously or not, on an individual basis, it has a strong effect on inter-gender relations. There's no biological basis other that basic animal neophobia for other forms of harassment (except perhaps of the disabled and elderly, but that's pretty theoretical); compared to other species, humans have a very low degree of neophobia, due to our greatly-extended childhood.
 * Everything else I can think of applies to more than just sexual harassment, and often more strongly. I'm only addressing sexual harassment and other misconduct toward females here, and putting aside obvious related phenomena like sexual abuse of young males, homophobia, transphobia, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, and me answering the question that was asked with my opinion. I don't need to cite sources for my views, and this is not an article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there is tacit social approval for male on male rape in prison, and plenty of times, when an older woman commits statutory rape on a guy, the guy is seen as "lucky". Do we really need to limit the sexual harassment policy to only affect women? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We certainly don't and those tacit social approvals are part of the larger one I already identified. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you agree. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Question (and comment): Along the lines of the title of this section, considering the fact that sexual harassment is still harassment, then why is it not more justifiable to add the specifics to address the issue in the current WP:Harassment policy and update No personal attacks with appropriate language? To advocate that one type of harassment, sexual or gender based ("Sexually harassment casues (sic) more harm than other forms of harassment. It's a more serious offense."), which is certainly serious, over say bullying (that can lead to suicide), or racism that may also lead to suicide, as inherently worse is wrong on more than one level. Any harassment ("systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions"), especially with malice aforethought, that would certainly be manifested with any repetition, should not be tolerated. Giving that the accepted definition that more than one instance must be involved should be limited to cases where "aggravated personal attacks" or "malice", or malicious injury are not involved. This would mean that "any" grievous act, including intimidation, prejudice or discrimination "because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation" should be equally serious and as equally not tolerated on Wikipedia. My opinion, founded on careful thought of a possible slippery slope of championing a cause that is detrimental or debasing to other areas, is that we do not need a "new" policy but inclusion and expounding on the one area "included" within the others. If there are enhancing aspects of a violation of policy it usually means more than one related policy is also violated. A lawyer wishing to make a point to a jury can make a statement, that will be objected to, but can simply be withdrawn without consequence, before the judge rules. In theory this would mean the jury "must" disregard this statement but in actuality this may not be the case. A person that "may" understand policies and guidelines or even knowing how to game the system can do about the same thing. Wikipedia is not limited to such "legal" wrangling and can effect wording so that a person making a one time transgression of a serious nature "must" understand that serious ramifications may result. A problem is that the definition of "harassment" means repeated. Any form of harassment is a WP:personal attack and sexual is included in the policy but not specifics like gender attacks. That does not mean that once the wording is effected, and policy(s) updated, that a "specific guideline" would not be appropriate, but that we do not need a one that is actually redundant just lacking specific wording. Otr500 (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Why has this proposal been made while there is an ongoing RfC on the question as to whether a separate secual harassment policy is required?
The RfC is here. The RfC has been running for less than a day. No decision has been made. I can see no reason why a single contributor should be permitted to simply preempt the discussion in such a manner - it makes a nonsense of the whole RfC process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This proposal was made because I wanted to write a proposal. Also I got the feeling that there was a consensus there should be a sexual harassment policy from the RfC. There's no rules about when you can or can't make proposals though. Thankfully. --ScWizard (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be examined at the very least and I see no harm in at least working on a draft. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is useful for people to play with the wording of such a proposal in order to see what it would look like - it helps to define if a standalone policy would make sense, or what a subsection would look like in a well-written harassment policy. Right now, WP:Civility bans sexual harassment in an incredibly Rube Goldberg way, as something mentioned under "identifying uncivil behavior" as a non-"direct" form of harassment.  My preference is to rewrite WP:Civility top to bottom, cutting its size by more than half to take out the blather, and then, we should look to merging it with harassment, and then, we should have a subsection in the unified single policy that briefly details any particular special issues we identify here or in other draft composition that have to do with the sexual type in particular.  But... this is the most self-contained part of the task, and I didn't get a single word for or against WT:Civility/sandbox when I proposed those changes before. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"personal sexual beliefs"
As has been pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Harassment, the phrase "personal sexual beliefs" is problematic - not least because it is arguably at odds with Child protection policy regarding paedophilia - as a matter of policy, anyone self-identifying as a paedophile is blocked indefinitely. No ifs, no buts - such belief (or rather the expression of such belief) is incompatible with Wikipedia. And even discounting that issue, it should hardly need to be said that one persons beliefs regarding sexuality may be entirely incompatible with another person's - and may on occasion be incompatible with the acceptable norms of Wikipedia discourse. We have in the past blocked individuals because their stated beliefs on sexuality amount to an attack on others. If someone engages in the promotion of say openly homophobic views - their "personal sexual beliefs" - to the detriment of civil discourse on the project, we may well chose to remove them from the project - and don't need a poorly-worded policy on harassment standing in the way. As currently worded, the policy is an incitement to Wikilawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is almost as if the community would be better served by a generic prohibition against all harassment than it would trying to nail down the nitty gritty of specific types of harassment. Oh wait, we already do. Chillum 13:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Zac'ly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be clear that persecution based on beliefs isn't sexual harassment per se, though it's not a good thing. I'm going to take that out for now, as too irrelevant, while reinserting "sex", which someone inaccurately said is the same as gender.  I agree with Chillum more or less that I picture this ultimately ending up as a paragraph in another policy, but if people are here they might as well go through these issues and see what unique ones survive the tumble. Wnt (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like we all agree that portion was a problem. It's already been removed it seems. --ScWizard (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Essay
I think consensus at the RFC has been that the harassment policy should include something about harassing someone on the basis of race, sex, age, etc., but strongly against a dedicated policy specifically for one kind of personal characteristic someone can be harassed on the basis of. That being said, I think it is useful to have a dedicated, in-depth document that provides specific instructions on how to handle it, both if you are accused of sexual harassment, and if you believe you are the victim of it, that is more detailed and instructional than the policy, while being based on it.

This last thing is an important note. I was accused of racial discrimination not that long ago, merely because I rejected an AFC submission. We have lots of trolls and POV pushers that throw around accusations like this.

So a few things I think would be useful on this document:
 * Like the HARASS policy, should probably cover race, age, etc.
 * Specific instructions on how to respond to this kind of harassment and being accused of it
 * How to report it privately as mentioned
 * Examples and definitions that help draw the line between what is and isn't harassment in this context

CorporateM (Talk) 23:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The main issue I see: The problem with even having this as an essay, with this name and scope, is that, as with various other essays, some people, including eventually some admins, will start interpreting it as having more authority that it does just because they like it a lot. Meanwhile, editors on WP make nasty accusations against each other all the time. A page like this will be seen as giving license to increase the number, frequency, and invective-level of unfounded sexism and harassment accusations and a system-WP:GAMING tool to act like a WP:VESTED editor, and the more fans it gets the more it will be used to thwart WP:NPA enforcement against anyone making hyperbolic, bad-faith-assumptive accusations if they made sexism or harassment allegations in particular. "Sexual harassment" as a title already presupposes that someone is being harassed and that someone is harassing. In all likelihood it's not happening in most cases, except in the case of a troll/vandal, who does not obey WP norms, but is just here to grief people until banned again. WP is an exceedingly public medium. There is no way to say something sexist or harassing here and hide it.  And we already have a policy covering it when it happens. The title is unjustified sabre-rattling, a presumption that there's an unaddressed problem. (If there's an inadequately addressed one, the solution is to improve the existing policy and its enforcement, not create a competing one that divides attention and effectiveness.)


 * A general harassment essay? The obvious proximal cause of the negative reaction to this page and proposal is the name and focus. But people might support a page that consisted mostly of advice on not calling people sexists (or racists, or other -ists) or harassers, not taking WP's organic, demographic-derived WP:BIAS problem as a conspiracy, or a WP:GREATWRONG to make other people pay for, etc.  WP has a way bigger problem with troublemakers who have a "cause" than with actual harassers of any kind.  It should, as CoporateM suggests, include other issues than sexism. It should cover how to not be insensitive to other editors and make them feel you have some -ism axe to grind with them. And what to do about accusations.  An balanced interpretive essay of that sort WP:HARASS could actually work, with broad editorial input, as long as it doesn't just serve the interests of a particular demographic (or the interests of a bunch of them against a particular one).  And of course it should have a pointer for where to find the right noticeboard if you feel you are in fact being harassed (for any reason).


 * A gender gap essay? A different kind of essay (i.e. a fork) that would probably get a lot more buy-in (but is not mutually exclusive with a harassment essay) is one on how to help close the gender gap among editors, make women editors feel more at home, increase and improve WP's coverage of women as article subjects, etc. If it were couched in terms of 'what you can do" instead of "what you'd better not do", a lof people would like such a page and no have an issue with it being focused on a particular demographic.  We already have a gender gap task force but it's wikiproject, not an essay or advice page. I'm sure they'd be a good cadre of editors to build such a page (and probably have a lot of constructive input on a harassment essay, for that matter).   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Privately reporting
I don't agree with this provision. In my observation of other instances of bad behavior, the discussions and remedies have been public. Why gender and sexual-identity based harassment gets special treatment does not have precedence to my knowledge.Mattnad (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have generally favored your point of view. However, there are some very toxic phenomena going on throughout the internet that are making me a bit more tolerant of some flexibility here.  It's not just that there are trolls - there have always been trolls - the problem is that the commitment of many institutions, small and large, to academic freedom or employee rights seems to have diminished, even as the trolls turn pro, with commercial motives.  I cannot explain that second part, since (like paying ransom to hostage-takers) every capitulation weakens those making it.  Yet the companies that used to proudly stare down ten years of boycotts rather than end discriminatory policies now are willing to toss out anyone from a CEO to a store clerk based on nothing more than a Twitter trend.


 * I think the problem at this point is that if some troll posts his appreciation to the talkpages of each of the "ten best-breasted women of Wikipedia" according to their profile pictures, the natural urge of many readers is going to be to look up the images. Then maybe share them.  Then somebody else starts posting throwaway comments about them.  And instead of feeling simply amused, as I think they might in a free society, the women are going to start feeling afraid that somebody Googles their name and sees a perhaps slightly risque photo of them and is judgmental against them, even though they have done nothing wrong.  Which gives the troll power - power he can use to try to force users who disagree with him on some key issue to lower their profiles or vanish their accounts completely.


 * Add to this the spectacular hacks of sites like AdultFriendFinder and now Ashley Madison. There are something like a hundred million records out there waiting to be cross-referenced and abused by those seeking to turn people against one another for fun and profit, including on Wikipedia.


 * It is not a real solution to try to hide the proceeding. Confidentiality is never an obligation, only an indulgence.  Analogy: Whenever a decent person walks in Central Park, he makes everyone a little safer from muggers.  Yet the person who avoids it because who knows what might happen will often act holier than thou about "well if you're an idiot what do you think will happen?"  Even though he is the one not doing his part.  But a certain provision for confidentiality nonetheless might prevent Wikipedia's admin forums from being used as a jumping-off point where mobs of users look for the next "ten best-breasted" post to get their jollies.  This is like if the city closes the park at certain times to keep people from getting mugged in it, perhaps.  Not ideal, but ... at the moment it might make sense.


 * The question then is -- how do we implement any such idea to prevent it from becoming a situation in which admins are tempted to abuse power, or just plain dumb decisions are made out of public view? We should think of safeguards. Wnt (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue of fair process is important and not easily managed if we have secret reporting and deliberations. But Wikipedia is not at all like the physical world where retaliation can have real physical consequences, and even there if someone is being stalked, the police reports etc. are all public documents.  This idea of private complaint comes out of college processes which are not ideal either.  Example, Laura Kipnis and | this controversy started by anonymous complaints and operating in secret for months.  So it's no small undertaking to create a good private reporting process if it has any enforcement mechanism.  This is true of any harassment problem, not just gender and sexual identity.Mattnad (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're going too far into theory here, or at least, I'm hard pressed to disagree with what you say. Yet the practical matter of (sort of) confidential reporting is pretty simple.  User gets harassed - user emails admin instead of going to talk page or ANI - admin looks at it, and if it seems like blatant abuse he can block or warn someone right away.  Admins on Wikipedia aren't currently bound to put every decision to a formal proceeding, which at times is a real problem but that's how it is already.  The fly in the ointment is that after the user is blocked he comes here without logging in and starts whining on Jimbo Wales' page, or writes about it on Wikipediocracy, or otherwise raises a stink, and everyone has an opinion about whether the admin is right or wrong.  Wikipedia can't do something about some of that, but then again, an imperfect solution doesn't have to be implemented perfectly.  But we could have something where one or two verifiably randomly chosen admins audit and sign off on the initial action, and then we go ahead and rule further discussion to be out of our scope and remove such threads where they appear.  I wouldn't say revdeling because I know full well that is only going to get people like you and me suspicious and cause a full examination of the issue, while the original troll is under no obligation of secrecy off-site.  Still, we could take this stuff off the podium at least, mark the issues "settled" and try to move on quickly.
 * A process held in true confidence, where all trace of the offending edits vanishes from the logs, where there is no public knowledge of who the victim is, and no indication is given of why (perhaps even whether) the person found to be at fault was blocked... that is much, much less feasible.  Because if even one person saw the offending text, and starts talking about it, what do you do then?  Before long there's a whole parallel process to the secret deliberation going on, which is less reliable and hence more offensive than what would have happened if people had simply settled the matter in public.  So I don't want to see this taken to extremes, yet as a practical matter, considerable reduction in the public visibility should be reasonably attainable.  At least... until somebody programs that Watson computer to be a trollmaster and feeds it continually updated site logs where its neural network can pick out drama and humiliation; then we're pretty well sunk.  (And that really is only a matter of time - given 30 years, there might be a Watson on many a desktop) Wnt (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "But we could have something where one or two verifiably randomly chosen admins audit and sign off on the initial action, and then we go ahead and rule further discussion to be out of our scope and remove such threads where they appear."
 * I quote you in saying that, so does that mean there are no appeals allowed? A ban on further discussion would logically constitute a ban on appeals, so are you saying that appeals will be banned? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 08:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are other situations where editors are told to appeal via e-mail, such as after Arbcom actions. I was never really a fan of these, but I still think there is a chance early on to keep the process relatively low profile.  It should be clear though that for this to work, the private results have to be relatively lenient - you can't permaban an editor in private and expect him never to show up posting from some IP at Jimbo Wales or Wikipediocracy.  There are some people who started off talking about automatic blocking and stuff, but I think they overreach, because off-wiki sexual harassment is almost always a legal option, with the exception of some jurisdictions with vague cyberbullying laws that might be used against anyone, even the admins making the block, so that anyone with the right connections can get what he wants.  For example, in the "best breasts" hypothetical example I gave above, there's nothing to stop an editor from registering bestbreastsofwikipedia.com and illustrating it with all his favorite photos and giving awards to users.  So instead of driving him off, we'd be smarter to have an admin who just blanks the section and tell him "knock it off; some of the people you're mentioning are feeling harassed."  It might be wise even to suggest an opt-in Wikipedia beauty contest is OK as long as he advertises only in public discussion forums and only mentions people who enter voluntarily, preferably after arranging that both sexes are able to participate.  We want to defuse the situation rather than set it off. Wnt (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the end for me, I actually don't care about private communications if someone is seeking help. But if there are going to be sanctions against a user, it has to be disclosed - what exactly did he or she do wrong with diffs or off Wikipedia evidence.  It's just the fair thing to do.  So as part of the recommendations, it should be clear secret decisions and/or evidence are not appropriate.Mattnad (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's unique about sexual harassment, is that victims can be further harassed, shamed, or blamed, as a result of reporting it. Victims of sexual assault are frequently blamed, but victims are regular assault are seldom blamed. --ScWizard (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is actually a trait that applies to anything built on the basis on "my word vs your word" especially among small communities. In cases of physical assault you have proof of the event through physical injuries. From there the legal actions that follow are straight forward and codified. However, victims are still regularly harassed, shamed, and blamed over the reasons for the report if there were no witnesses.  Domestic violence victim shaming and blaming by friends, family, and associates is extremely well documented.  This situation is a bit different as everything is recorded and reviewable by the admins, editors, and the general public. The ambiguity of differential reporting of an event is eliminated.  Furthermore, due to this fact the anonymity of the accuser is easy to deduce unless the accused is not given details on the offense.Brainplay (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of victim blaming of regular assault as well. They say that we shouldn't be walking alone at night in dark alleys if we don't want to be mugged, but that's victim blaming. We should be teaching the muggers not to mug! The cops just say that you shouldn't go into dark alleyways, and oftentimes, your friends will ridicule you. They'll call you idiots "because you didn't take steps to protect your safety". I shouldn't have to, the thieves should be taught not to steal! Also, you're going to need a citation for that sexually harassed people get harassed, shamed, and blamed more than others. In plenty of educational environments, you see tons of non-sexual bullying, and then if one was to report it, they are shamed as a "snitch", are blamed for being a "wimp", and are harassed more! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No one needs a citation to express an opinion on a draft's talk page. It's annoying to keep insisting on one. No one is demanding citations from you about the points you're making about regular assault. (I agree with them.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the "supposed" reporting criteria and things that might work. The section Private reporting of sexual harassment in part states, "We will create methods that will give some way for editors... to report privately to the administrators.". I am still against elevating one form of harassment above others. If a "sexual" harassment is serious or considered egregious, in my view there should be some protection or enforcement (but this should be the case with all egregious forms of attacks and harassment) that is more immediate than the current process. Reporting (privately) to "the administrators" needs to be explored as I am assuming this would be an AN/I because the next section covers Interaction bans. An interaction ban can be through 1)- community consensus (there would be nothing immediate here), 2)- AN\I usually from a request for arbitration, 3)- an admin with a AN\I delegation, 4)- through Jimbo Wales, or 5)- the WMF. The question is: What can be preventative and protective, that will not be drawn out?
 * There are blocks for protection and disruption. These can be for more immediate use through administrator intervention. Note that while blocks for "personal attacks" are listed under "prevention", blocks for "gross incivility" (what is any relationship between gross and egregious?), and "harassment" are listed under "Disruption". There is confusion and conflicts concerning criteria.
 * A suggestion of an interaction "block" (IBLOCK) would allow an admin the authority to implement a block, by discretion at least for 24 hours (?), and can be as a "protection" for all forms of attacks including sexual harassment, personal attacks, incivility (defining gross or egregious) and harassment. An admin is directed "when in doubt, do not block" so when there is perceived to be no doubt why not?
 * However, I have found there is already a remedy for "serious" violations of harassment. An editor may use Private hearings through arbitration. How to use this does not seem clear to me but if this is a possible solution it would be important to include in policy. This goes along with what USer:ScWizard stated, "What's unique about sexual harassment, is that victims can be further harassed, shamed, or blamed, as a result of reporting it.". Again, I still feel this should include all forms of egregious (very serious or gross) attacks including discriminatory attacks.
 * Just curious, "IF" we open Pandora's box of specifically creating a separate sexual harassment policy instead of a specific guideline (essentially defining one area of harassment or attacks over another) I would like to know how we will be able to avoid the slippery slope and future argument that "bullying" is less severe so would not warrant a separate policy, then race related harassment, and so forth. If any editor makes "any" serious, or gross, or egregious (whatever term used) attacks (harassment) that should be considered intolerable, then there will have been substantial progress to equal protection. Otr500 (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Topics under consideration (moved from draft)

 * 1) Whether such a policy should exist at all -- the RFC is still in progress
 * 2) What points should be contained in a sexual harassment policy
 * 3) How a sexual harassment policy would relate to the English Wikipedia's existing general policy on harassment
 * 4) How a sexual harassment policy would relate to the Non-discrimination policy outlined in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use.

[[WP:Sexual harassment policy|"Sexual harassment policy" page]]
I don't know who made that page, but I certainly agree that redirecting it to WP:harassment is smart, as to not be confuse people as to what current policy is. There was also a mention of forum shopping, which I'm not at all aware of. I hope whatever editors involving that (if any) don't pounce on this page. --ScWizard (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Temporary interaction bans
As far as I'm aware, admins do not currently issue "temporary interaction bans" unless authorised to do so (for example, under discretionary sanctions. So To avoid further issues arising, it is possible for admins to issue a temporary interaction ban while they investigate needs re-wording.  Roger Davies  talk 09:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Either we allow temp IBANs for all types of harassment or we leave it up to the community as normal. Personally I think it should be left to the community. I don't think we should be banning anyone from anything pending investigation, we should wait until we have facts. Accusations of wrong doing are more common than wrong doing around here and it is bound to be gamed. Chillum 13:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh look, I'm in an argument with another editor. Now the other editor makes a sexual harassment complaint, temporary IBAN, and there is now a lack of ability to create consensus. Have the proposers addressed this possibility? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 08:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with all three of the above: Need clarification, best left to the community, and easily gamed if it's left to "Robocop" admin discretion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Block versus WP:IBAN

 * I would think no editors would want even the possibility of allowing for a "Robocop" admin. An IBAN would be a "ban" between two editors to stop them from interacting with each other, that "cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others.", and are usually not short term. According to what I read this does not stop any attempt or ability to create consensus, being just between two editors interactions and not necessarily on the same page, but please (@ SMcCandlish) give me your thoughts as to how it might. An admin does not have the authority to implement a ban. An admin can implement a Block for protection and disruption.
 * Admins already have the authority to block for several reasons but are restricted by such language as "persistent" when it come to considerations of protection. An admin can block for disruption for gross incivility (on a first offense with personal attack included in civility right?) and harassment that inherently means persistent. Is there some leap in thoughts that the same admin "could" become a Robocop by allowing a block, especially a 24 hour block, to not only protect someone with a complaint claiming injury (protection), but as a warning that the admin does consider it a serious disruption.
 * 24 hour block: I can not see that a 24 hour "block", maybe call it an interaction block (IBLOCK), could create a "Robocop" (there is already discretionary blocks allowed) but could allow an admin the added discretion to stop a potential problem before it escalates, give protection to someone egregiously attacked on a first offense, and wording can be used if the admin sees it is needed as a "warning" such as with malice. This would precede any "formal" resolutions sought.
 * In my opinion we can NOT expect improvements without enforcement. Are some attacks worse than others? I think we agree yes. Are some attacks so egregious as to be extremely injurious? Again I would think we would all agree. What we have now (with "persistent") is that it takes repeated attacks to get into trouble. This is like, "don't punch the editor in the face again or we will consider serious sanctions". What about an egregious sexual personal attack? As it stands now it is like like, "don't belittle, debase, humiliate, or otherwise seriously offend the editor again or we will consider "serious" sanctions. There is no protection for a single egregious personal attack because "do not repeat" (persistent) precludes any sanctions. If an editors is called on the carpet for such an attack he or she can simply apologize, with an acceptable excuse, so "withdrawn" (says the lawyer) makes it all better.
 * @ Chillum; I am wondering how "serious" does serious have to get to be intolerable? Surely as editors building a great online encyclopedia we can come up with a criteria for "unacceptable" behavior to include certain words used in a personal attack. I can not imagine that any editor (no matter the country) can not be aware that the "C-word" (no, I don't even like it in general use), directed at another editor, is not totally unacceptable and certainly should never be used here. If someone called my wife that we would likely have to call the police and an ambulance. That is just one example of one word but I am sure consensus could come up with others. Just wondering! If one editor knew another was black and used the "N-word", how many times should this be allowed? Personal attacks (incivility) need to be taken seriously, "before" they are repeated. If a personal attack involves words related to race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation sexual, this should certainly be grounds for immediate intervention. There is not such a fine line between collaboration to build a great encyclopedia and doing so with civility but as I have seen it appears the civility policy has somehow become less important. Can we change that? Otr500 (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's say that an editor on Wikipedia were to call all of a gender group "scum", or insult and belittle them.
What would happen under this proposed policy? Just asking. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, taken to ANI and sanctioned I'd imagine. If it's just some random troll, probably dealt with using CIVIL or NOTHERE or this policy. But if that comment were from an editor with a history of comments that were targeting one group, this policy could address that pattern of behavior. Curious why you ask.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to get that down for the future. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that in both this question and in the policy, we should be clear that we are speaking of groups of editors. It should be perfectly acceptable, when an editor is explaining something about his religion on the Humanities Refdesk or explaining why a piece of article text seems biased to him, for him to explain that according to his religious beliefs some sexual minority is bound for Hell or whatever.  May be silly, but we would violate a corresponding nondiscrimination principle about religion if we denied that right.  BUT, if that same person goes and starts telling gay editors they can't edit about concepts in Islam -- that crosses the line, and alienates editors.  So we should be clear that we're speaking of harassing a group of editors, not merely expressing negative opinions about a group of people. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The right to express opinions and beliefs should never be infringed. A negative (subjective) opinion about someone or a group is not the same as directing comments at or towards that person or group. "IF" an editor refers to another editor, or a particular group, using prejudice or malicious stereotyping then I believe I could successfully argue this is incivility and a personal attack. My opinion is that directing the word "scum" at anyone, would be serious on a personal level and in this context would be malicious discrimination and incivility. I strive for objectiveness and fairness. I personally believe in God yet would be sorely offended if someone impugned an edit simply because I had a template on my user page that acknowledges this. I hold that someone has just as much right not to believe as I do to believe but a certain belief can not be used to judge qualifications or provide automatic exclusions. Imagine how many editors, that hold no belief in a God, edit religious articles. "IF" it were not for these views most religious articles would just be slanted in one direction. The same applies to articles that present a different viewpoint. That is why NPOV and balance are important in an encyclopedia.
 * We still have the issue that most things are given a pass on a first instance. Look at the incivility section (last sentence) and note "In cases of repeated harassment". Unless someone would like to suggest that harassment is not inherently a second time (or more) then that wording actually means "in cases of harassment harassment". At present I could call someone "scum" and likely just get warned but I place this word (directed at someone) as an egregious attack because of the debasing, insulting, and belittling (is this bullying?) meaning.
 * I fully support that we would never want to endanger losing a good (or great) editor because of a simple uncivil remark (or more if they are just rude), or create an atmosphere that would make it so we would have to be so polite (my esteemed colleague) or needing to tip-toe (I mean no disrespect but you are wrong) but maliciousness, exhibiting hatred, or such extreme disdain that shows contempt that someone is somehow on a lower-status (lowest of the low) in life or their belief's, should not be allowed. As far as harassment, this is covered under Identifying incivility that includes name-calling and many forms of "less severe" or petty attacks. In what could appear to be a weakening of the civility policy is the advice to admins to not actually sanction for incivility but use disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, or harassment, instead. I believe this is not a "weakening" but a clarification into more specifics. This is another reason that placing the three (civility, harassment, and no personal attacks) together as core conduct policies would be a step in the right direction. Otr500 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The right to express opinions and beliefs should never be infringed. Nonsense. You can't express your opinion that you think all Jews should be killed or that all women are inferior. This is wikipedia, not a street corner for people to preach their prejudices.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Was that a for real comment are do I need to ask on your talk page for clarification if you are attempting to disrupt Wikipedia? Why would you (@ EvergreenFir) make such accusations towards me? If an editor is going to pounce on a statement or comment then that editor should be careful in using indirect accusations. You quoted my comments, which means "you" were directing a reply to me, and then stated all the crap about Jews. Since I have never made such comments using the words "you" and "yours" within such a derogatory "example" is not cool. "You" will have someone combing through Wikipedia trying to find that information against me so you might have used "Example":, but I know what you mean -just stating it for the record. --LOL
 * Please note: We have a policy to ignore all rules but that is about as far from the truth as can possible be. Ignore all rules you can get away with is correct. We have supposed freedom of speech in the US but there again, it is dependent. You can't yell fire in a theater even if you lit a match. If there is not prudence, and expectations of what a "normal" person (editor) would do then it is moot. You can not say the things you mentioned because they violate many Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As for the street corner; we (editors) fight everyday on the street corner pages for inclusion or exclusion of relevant information that becomes slanted and has "protectorate" editors with an agenda. We know it is a fact we just can't say it that way. I was actually pretty clear, even giving a long explanation of intended meaning considering the above "It should be perfectly acceptable, when an editor is explaining something about his religion on the Humanities", that a personal belief should not be infringed. There are editors on Wikipedia that could Wikilaywer a greeting of hello, but that will not make them any more or less correct.
 * The way you put it every answer would have to be 2 pages long because there is no expectation of the obvious or "normal" or sane so I will rephrase and hope I didn't miss anything:
 * @ Wnt, Concerning what you stated, I feel The right to express opinions and beliefs should never be infringed, that does not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, offend anyone as an personal insult or attack, intended attack, supposed attack, derogatory in regards to race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation, that is not violent, expressing harm, intent to harm, or anything "other" than a particular belief or idea. This means you can likely make a statement concerning a personal belief, that does not violate laws or Wikipedia policies and guidelines, without first starting a RFC or seeking a third party. However, considering there will be some that will want to misread (or stretch) what you will have stated then it might be advisable to first seek a sounding board and possibly pass it by your lawyer for clarification. That sure seems extreme to try to be politically correct, OR-- we can assume good faith that I did not have intentions, nor should any other editor, of believing, surmising, or creating the thought that any "freedom" would inherently mean complete and free to say anything regardless of any state laws, federal laws, international laws, and policies or guidelines. When we run across an editor like this we can just straighten "that editor" out then. It would save a lot of unnecessary writing. Otr500 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was directed at you. Or, more specifically, at your silly statement. Identity-based harassment is not limited to remarks about or directed toward a specific editor. It does include statements about entire groups. You say that You can not say the things you mentioned because they violate many Wikipedia policies and guidelines... which guidelines? CIVIL? The point is that such statements would be under this proposed policy explicitly as they target certain groups.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are attempting to improve policy by attacking someone? Do you consider that a prudent move? Is there a point to making a statement that, if directed at me is a total lie because I have never made the comments you referred to, and I attempted to go around this (does "avoiding personal attacks count"), and to be VERY clear the statement was; " You can't express your opinion that you think all Jews should be killed or that all women are inferior. This is wikipedia, not a street corner for people to preach their prejudices.". Directed at me makes it appear that I said those things, so I attempted (very clearly) to clarify it. Your reply is that you meant what you said. This is the type of attacks (now would be a good time to stop attacking, that has already reached harassment and is even bullying to try to prove a point) that WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, and now WP:Harassment is suppose to prevent. You found issue, out of all I stated, specifically that editors should not be attacked for particular beliefs (I even expounded on this at length), so in essence you think attacks over religious based issues are alright just not sexual. In an attempt to diffuse your comments (repeated just above) I attempted to "be civil" and you continue an attack with "Yes, that was directed at you.". Short of an apology how do you think I should proceed with this? You have made comments, indirectly pointed at me and then directly for clarification upon questioning, that I have stated horrendous remarks about Jews, and killing, and that women are inferior.
 * Imagine "if" this was a sexual based attack, now imagine the frustration. The current policy proposal does "absolutely nothing' to stop this form of attacks (that could just as easily be sexual) from happening. You can keep this going, another couple of edits, then, when it is decided (it is pass that) you are disruptive to the point of hurtful, you will either try to explain that there was miscommunication and apologize, that I took the whole thing the wrong way because "you" were not directing those hurtful things at me when using "you and your", even while admitting this with clarification, and I am suppose to what? act like it didn't happen. Your explanation, as justification, that you have made statements directed at me (you clarified this), that is an attack I consider serious, is that I (subjective from your point of view) made a silly remark. At what point am I suppose to stop assuming good faith and begin to wonder if you really care about improving Wikipedia or just make a show as such? At what point should it be deemed by others that you are attacking me (that would be repeatedly now) and that "you" not only need to stop but should reflect on possibly avoiding policy edits considering your ability to repeatedly "misunderstand", or possibly not care. I would suggest reading Manual of Style after possibly re-reading relevant policies on personal attacks and harassment. Otr500 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a policy on personal attacks but it may not be clear on how to handle them directly, or require too much good faith. If we think there should be better redress for a single or repeated events, then that's the starting point. Creating a splintered approach for gender vs. sexual orientation race vs. religion vs. creed vs. national origin vs. individual conflicts(which are by far the most common) etc. seems counter productive. Ultimately, there are many conflicts and instances of bad behavior that are NOT sexual or gender based.  Creating a separate, perhaps even specially protected, class is also contentious.
 * However, if someone makes a generalization about a group, that's a different kettle of fish. That's probably something that should be given more latitude if it's not directed at a particular editor. Since it's not a personal attack, then it's not a directly corrosive to how Wikipedia functions, which is about editors working together one way or another. Mattnad (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)