Requests for comment/LGBTQIA+phobia

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus to change the text of the oversight policy. Most opposers noted that the concern raised by the proposer is already covered by the current text. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The oversight policy does not cover non-nominatives agressions against categories of people in case of LGBTQIA+phobia (ex homophobia transphobia enbyphobia) or racism even if there are death threats and insults against those people. Those insults should be hiden and erased from the history like they are when the insult is against someone. I propose to modify the policy to "someone or people". If you have better idea to cover LGBTQIA+phobia racism and protect LGBTQIA+ & racialized people and punish those agressions you're welcome Scriptance (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scriptance. Several years ago, the WMF took the position that the list of "oversightable" cases in the global policy was the *minimum* that had to be offered by an individual project; however, projects were permitted to expand the list in accord with their own community's approval. Some projects are very strict in staying only to that minimal list of circumstances, while others have expanded quite a bit. Other projects have developed revision-deletion categories that are specific to that community's experiences.

I'm an oversighter on English Wikipedia. On our project, death threats (targeted at anyone, whether or not a Wikipedia editor) are generally suppressed, and are routinely reported to Trust & Safety for further review and action where applicable. Personal attacks are treated situationally, but will be at minimum reverted, most likely revision-deleted, and possibly suppressed; the editor/IP making the personal attack is likely to be blocked. One must keep in mind that anything revision-deleted is visible only to administrators of that project; non-administrators and the general public will not be able to see the content of that revision. Suppressed material is visible only to other oversighters. But both revision-deleted and suppressed materials remain in the "history" of the page, they're just not accessible and their content is not visible to non-administrators (or oversighters, if suppressed) or to the public. This has been the case since the revision-deletion/suppression tool was introduced in 2009.

In summary, the decision on how to handle certain problem edits (death threats, personal attacks based on orientation or racism) is made at the level of the individual project. Some projects are quite liberal in their use of revision-deletion and suppression for these matters (English Wikipedia is one), and others are very restrictive. If you've noticed a specific project where this is an issue, it would be helpful to point this out directly. I hope this background is helpful to you. Risker (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Scriptance proposes is to slightly change the wording so that in French it can not be interpreted as covering only nominative attacks (if one translats "someone" as "quelqu'un". I have had the problem nore than one ː an insult is treated as an insult only if it nominates a particular person, which means that somenone ranting against a group of people (or a project) can just get away with it even if th red line is crossed behaviorwise,

this is the paragraph involved «Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone.»

Therefore, “someone" could be changed to "someone or a group of people ». Hyruspex (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support edit

̈ Hyruspex (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, necessary to specifically focus on QoopyQoopy (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Oppose I don't see this as necessary, only because this is already covered under "Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone." The word "someone" means anyone of any background. Specifying attacks against people of the LGBT would also need to include specifying attacks against someone because of their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, and any other aspect which was prominent discrimination. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it had to cover every discrimination even if the case i come here to deal with is about queerphobia (and notice that the modification I ask do not mention specific category of people but only "people"). "Someone" is traducted in french by "quelqu'un" and so people argue that only nomitaves insults fall under the oversight policy. The main objective of this RFC is to cover non-nominatives insults wich is not possible with only "someone".Scriptance (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem either of poor translation or of incompetent enforcement. --2600:1004:B127:1D7F:CE9:3F42:E2AA:2E0F 14:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unnecessary. There is no need to subdivide classes of insult and threat by named categories like this. Reverting or revision deletion is quite adequate for almost all situations covered in the proposal. Revision deleted material is only visible to administrators, and administrators should be able to handle reading problematic material in order to be an administrator. Suppression, needing rarer kinds of users, should be reserved for material that would be harmful for administrators to view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Revision deletion (hiding from admins) is sufficient for most cases. For stuff like doxxing, that is already covered by OS. --Rs chen 7754 00:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose already covered by policy. --Jayron32 (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose already covered --Knoerz (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above, already supposed to be covered by criterion #4 of the Oversight policy. Better to keep it simple in this case, rather than introducing a very long list of protected groups that is never going to be exhaustive. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Waddles. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Waddles and Dsuke.--A09 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Waddles. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above comments, it is already covered in the policy, both against one or a group of people.FusionSub (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

"Death treats" are already covered under Threats of harm and are handled by WMF staff. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13, Graeme Bartlett, Rschen7754, Jayron32, Knoerz, and Dsuke1998AEOS: You are out of the point. Of course LGBTQIA+phobia and racism + others discrimination are already covered but only when it's against one specifique person. When it come to insults against a groupe the "someone" of the oversight policy do not cover those insults. I don't know if you read entirely my request but I do not ask to "introduce a very long list of protected groups that is never going to be exhaustive" but to add "or people" (or "or groupe") to the oversight policy to cover non-nominatives cases. As @Hyruspex: mentionned it thoses cases aren't actually covered by the oversight policy (based on the answer the admins does). Scriptance (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scriptance. Apologies because my previous comment also misunderstood the purpose of #4.

If I understand you well, what you want is to change case #4 to be something like ...denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone or a group of people., or any variations thereof. The problem is that Oversights on Meta are intended for very serious information, like the posting of a person's phone numbers or specific death threats. Vague threats against groups of people, like "All LGBT+ people deserve to die" or "Death to Arabs", are something to be handled by local admins, through RevDels, whereas less egregious stuff (e.g., saying "Marriage is between a man and a woman" or "I'm not racist, but...") is already disallowed by the upcoming Universal Code of Conduct, namely the part ...attacks based on personal characteristics ... sexual orientation, gender, sex....

As I said, I previously misinterpreted case #4 to mean that it applies to all content on Meta, but I was wrong. It only applies to "blatant attacks on automated lists and logs". This excludes attacks that only exist on a Meta page's content but not on its logs.

Regards, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dsuke1998AEOS:Ok thanks to answer me. We don't have such a rule like RevDels in wpfr and french wiktionnary. So I understand that I had to deal with our conservatives admins on wpfr and mostly indifferents admin of french wiktionnary to make these case fall under a revision deletion. It will be hard hard. Regards Scriptance (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scriptance: I find it strange that this place doesn't have a feature like this one, and I think it should. Certainly there are so many comments made by LTAs and other vandals that are so nasty as to deserve being removed from view, but which don't raise to the level of needing Oversight. Regards, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsuke1998AEOS:That's a great idea. So if we do it on meta it will be applied for all other wikimedia project (including wp fr and french wiktionnary) yes or no. DO we have to pass by a community things or whatever to do this feature or we don't have to. Regards

Scriptance (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

`