Requests for Comment/Harassment Guidelines

We have recently created Mental health resources and Training modules/Online harassment. This RfC is to create and solidify the policy around the two pages.

Proposal 1: Advanced Right Holders

 * All users in the following groups must confirm they have read and agree to follow the dealing with online harassment guide. Failure to handle harassment appropriately and in accordance with the policy may lead to action up to and including removal of rights.
 * This affects holders of: Checkuser, Oversight, Steward, CVT on any local wiki or globally and CoCC members

Support

 * 1) as proposed.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) As I've said elsewhere, Miraheze is not WMF, and using the same guidelines as them will probably not fit our culture. We decided not to have a definitive definition on harrassment (but an archived view, at least for the time being) in the past RfC, and thus enforcing to read a certain module will not fit as well.-- 12:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This covers how to handle harrasment through a lot of it rather than what harrasment is. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it should remain as a sample guideline (at most) rather than a forced rulebook. The question is, why can we have a guideline (how) even though we don't have a definition (what)?-- 13:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because we need to work on how we handle it. We have a discussion on thoughts about what it is and we have the CoC. The provisions in the document also go far to discuss handling of a lot. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the community might not be very interested in CoC and harassment issue (which means there aren't much need) seeing the last election result, which failed to elect all the 5 members. Additionally, even if we will have to work on thinking how to deal with harassment (at some point), importing from WMF like this instead of asking the community to form one by ourselves looks like a distrust against us community; why not let us think first instead?-- 13:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The community had over a week to give feedback and are welcome to throughout this RfC and beyond to ensure that we implement what’s best for Miraheze. The documents were all tweaked to our needs and I adapted some things as well as having conversations with the baord to ensure all legal sides were accurate. The Wikimedia import was a starting base for it. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's rather "the members who had access to meta/Discord/IRC" and not the community (all wiki editors on Miraheze) as a whole, right (this has been a long lasting problem, and we need to think about a way to resolve it, perhaps on a different RfC)? So there are two problems; most users do not know or are indifferent to this topic. And even for those who did know about the page, it was not very clear that the past week was prepared for feedback; in fact, I thought it was simply a notice for preparation.-- 13:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The notice said ‘you are encouraged to give feedback’. If you have any, please do give it so we can ensure these are the best we can give our community. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, I did not see the message (not on CN nor on the page, at least), but all right, let's put it aside. My opinion is, the guideline as a whole should not be forced considering the diverse community of Miraheze, and reported harassment should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Besides, I trust those who are elected by the community, and the best way IMO is to let them handle on their own discretion.-- 13:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s why it is a guideline on how users *should* handle things if they are not sure. If they have feedback and advice, please give it so we can share. There’s very little in it that must be done. As far as I remember, it’s just reporting child pornography and abuse cases to the board. This is about sharing our knowledge with anyone who might come into harrasment on how we think they are ways you may want to handle things. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet the proposal says "must agree to follow", making the guideline a must. Our trusted members usually have their policy to deal with reported cases, and the community trust their judgement. Even if something goes wrong, community members can discuss it and modify it if necessary. Members trusted by the community will usually not face a case that they cannot be sure, and can search for ways by themselves even if so.-- 14:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not exactly what it says but I’ll think about tweaking the wording to make the point clearer later. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not exactly what it says but I’ll think about tweaking the wording to make the point clearer later. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) . See below.  (PS--"I'll think about tweaking the wording," after it is agreed to?  I don't agree with any such process!)   14:47 29-Feb-2020

Proposal 2: Current Advanced Rights holders

 * Advanced Rights holders that will now be affected by Proposal 1 have 28 days from the close of this RfC to read and agree to the dealing with online harassment guide. Failure to do will lead to removal from the affected groups.

Support

 * 1) as proposed  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) See my comment above.-- 13:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) . See below.   14:47 29-Feb-2020

Proposal 3: Code of Conduct Amendment
The following is to be added to the Code of Conduct's definition of harassment:
 * Repeated failure to handle harassment appropriately and in accordance with guidelines despite warning

Support

 * 1) as proposed.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Moving to amended version.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) See my comment above. The guideline should not be a forced rulebook.-- 13:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is to help encourage the reporters that they are safe and about ensuring that appropriate bodies work together to review handling of an incident. The CoCC would have to have discussed this with those involved and have chosen to act in the case before enacting this provision against someone. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have CoCC rules, and the reporters' privacy will be protected (unless reporters themselves ask otherwise). I think it is enough to ensure that they are safe.-- 13:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The CoCC are not always the frontline. That could be admin teams on a wiki, stewards, our volunteers that help users. Whoever you report to you should be safe and be treat fairly. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but our NDA should be enough for Stewards, Checkusers, and Oversights. All we need is to add CVT members to the list of roles requiring an NDA, and not the whole guideline.-- 13:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding CVT to that group would be seperate but admins on any wiki don’t have an NDA and all the harrasment I see is as an admin and will be for 75% of our users that respond to harrasment. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What you wrote on proposal 1 says "This affects holders of: Checkuser, Oversight, Steward, CVT on any local wiki or globally and CoCC members," but given this comment, your true targets are local Admins and Bureaucrats, right? If so, forcing them to read a complicated and massive volume of guideline as this will result in shrinking community; many might choose other farms and leave Miraheze and seek for a place with no such complicated rulebooks.-- 14:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They don’t have to immediately read a compliacted proposal because the part that affects them in the CoC explicity says despite warning so actually if you think a community member handled harrasment innappropiately then I want you to approach them and say ‘Do you know when you dealt with x? What about doing y instead because of z’ and pointing out that we have some resourves that they can read if they want. We should never punish someone for handling harrasment inapparopiately without telling them how they can improve amd giving them a chance to first. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it should be "Repeated failure to handle harassment appropriately despite proper warnings by Stewards/CoCC members." This way, we can make this proposal independent from others and can still fulfill your intention.-- 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Added an amendment below.-- 14:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) . See below.   14:48 29-Feb-2020
 * 1) . See below.   14:48 29-Feb-2020

Amendment to Proposal3: Code of Conduct Amendment
The following is to be added to the Code of Conduct's definition of harassment:
 * Repeated failure to handle harassment appropriately despite proper warnings by Stewards/CoCC members

Support

 * 1) As the proposer.-- 14:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) see above.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . See below.   14:49 29-Feb-2020

Proposal 4: Managing Mental Health Resources
The addition or removal of an item on Template:Mental Health Resources may only be done when: OR The addition or removal of an item where it does not meet the above conditions may result in action up to and including a global site ban.
 * The action has already been done on the wikimedia version by a member of the Trust and Safety team.
 * Community consensus for the change has been made.

Support

 * 1) but we should develop our own process and guidelines as we become more experienced.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I don't necessarily think that the team on WMF nor the community can understand better about all the countries/languages than the locals given that they are both English-based, while many of such services aren't. We should allow locals to handle local numbers as long as they are trustworthy.-- 13:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I put the community vote section in. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet the question is: can an English-based community check and vote properly for non-English numbers?-- 13:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Beyond making the rulebook required reading, this proposal seeks to protect it from amendment by the usual process of consensus.   14:44 29-Feb-2020

Discussion

 * Advance notice given at Community_noticeboard - Use the notice thread to discuss until RfC starts.

An exercise in self-importance
The job of managing a wiki farm is not simple (as proven by the recent migration!) but it is one of the many things done by a society of humans. Like any society, ours has attracted new users who fancy themselves legislators and feel the society could be improved by a growing rulebook, written by them. The rulebook is on a path to overwhelm wiki management itself. The proposal that you cannot be admitted to a position of responsibility at Miraheze until you have read my rulebook, is preposterous. (I have not read it, but have read its Table of Contents, and this single page has 66 sections.) I agree with previous comments that such requirements will extinguish the pool of potential new volunteers. Beyond a requirement to claim you have read it, we will need tests that you have read it; and your critics can now point to any of those 66 sections as a law that you violated and maybe you were lying and didn't read it at all.

The US "gender" controversy doesn't apply at Miraheze because we are all essentially anonymous, but shows the rat-holes we could go down in attempts to codify courtesy. X is a man who claims to be a woman. Say I disagree with this claim. This is one of many minor frictions between individuals. But suddenly we have a rule requiring me to use X's preferred pronouns; that is, that one side of the (formerly trivial) disagreement is correct and everyone must agree. Impossible? My state's legislature has a workshop on "sexual harassment." If the 2018 elections were any guide, "harassment" includes both actual harassment and conduct that people claimed made them uncomfortable, though people will make a lot of claims if an election is imminent. I'm sure the workshop included use of preferred pronouns and such. Several legislators are up on charges, and could be expelled from their elected posts, for electing not to attend it.

Again, I don't care to settle any such issues on this page, but just to assert that Miraheze Meta doesn't need any of this crap. 14:41 29-Feb-2020