Talk:Harassment consultation 2015/Ideas/Policy

Unity can beat the harassment. hey Keilana! I would be really interested to hear if you - or anyone reading this - have any thoughts about what a policy about harassment would/could look like. There are a couple different elements we'd need, or at least want, to have in place, I think:

• A working and fairly objective definition of "harassment" (pinging LZia (WMF), User:PEarley (WMF), Rubbish computer, Seth Finkelstein, and Pbsouthwood here, since they participated in a related thread on the main consultation talk)
• A scope for this policy (events? projects? everything under the WMF umbrella? specific projects that opt in?)
• A defined reporting path and case-reviewing group (local functionaries? arbcoms? a global HarCom?)
• An enforcement workflow, and the accompanying user rights to apply it (could HarCom hand out blocks? Would they give recommendations to local admins/arbcoms? Would they only handle severe cases that reusulted in WMF global bans?)
• A sense of where and how much of this process would be done publicly, and a way to keep records and compile evidence without either operating in total secret or having to publicly reveal targets' ID or details

Obviously I don't expect you to have this all lined up and ready to hand over, but I think it would help with eventual review of this proposal if we could get some brainstorming going on concrete details for some or all of these things. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement body

The idea asks for an enforcement body. The farm of websites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation is controlled or administered by a hierarchy of functionaries including, but not limited to, stewards, bureaucrats and sysops/admins. Ultimate remedy for unwanted behavior by unwanted persons is to ban the person from one or more sites and or blocking the accounts the persons has registered with one or more sites. The forementioned functionaries have at least the technical capability to block accounts. Probably some guidelines are necessary, and instruction of functionaries, and training of those functionaries to detect unwanted behavior, and to train them to appropriately intervene.

Volunteers have a right to a safe working environment. The farm of websites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation is a working environment for volunteers within the Wikimedia Foundation. In my opinion it follows the Wikimedia Foundation has a duty to provide a safe environment, and thus not only a duty to develop and establish those rules and guidelines, but also a duty to instruct and train their hierarchy of functionaries. Moreover a duty to monitor and appraise the performance and conduct of those functionaries. The Wikimedia Foundation can not delegate this responsibility to the community of a project website. We all to often experience the Hobbesian brute, nasty and short lifes of volunteer contributors. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

to combat harassment the 1st base is a common faith amongst human race.

It could only be enforced by developing trust amongst nations and by building a faith that that the results will be a success. The relegation pundit are the main actiors that brought frustration all around the world root cause of harassment. The unity of nations is the way out to protect the generation from from division on the base of fabricated theological factions. The molvi is depressing the innocent boys by blackmail that they couldn't breath properly under harassment and very easily go to blow themselves on indicated target. .... Manzoor khan 1 (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)