Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide for Safety and Security

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Recommendation? Its already decided month ago.[edit]

How is this a recommendation? Latest since September 2019 WMF works on a Universal Code of Conduct. And WMF states on that page "The Wikimedia movement needs a binding set of ethical guidelines" - so this "recommendation" isn't really one. WMF decided already what is needed and it doesn't matter what anyone says about that. ...Sicherlich Post 21:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sicherlich, the recommendations do encompass acknowledging ongoing work that has started before the recommendations were complete. It happens that one of the items included in this recommendation, a universal code of conduct, is one such item. Same as building response capacity and emergency preparedness – both things that have been discussed within the movement as having the potential for improvement for years. It's not scheming, but serendipity. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure. You put smth. in a "to be discussed" strategy paper what WMF already decided has to be done. So don't put it into recommendations but into "already ongoing, no feedback needed" ... And if I read Talk:Universal Code of Conduct right, it does not have to much support by the community so far. But sure, putting it into this list of a lot of recommendations it will get its approval for sure, as one in the end can only approve them all or reject them all (plus: who uses meta anyways? Some hard core meta folk who do not represent the global community at all and WMF staff. Most Wikipedians don't come here.) ...Sicherlich Post 23:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Conflating the recommendation with once specific item in the recommendation just to score rhetorical points is not really a good way towards a productive discussion. That aside, why should things that the WMF is working on be excluded from the recommendations? The strategy process and WMF leadership had very different means of identifying what the movement needs; if they agree on something, that is a valuable signal. Even if the universal code of conduct gets fully implemented by the time the recommendations are accepted (which I kinda doubt), and so that part turns out to be non-actionable, the added legitimacy would surely make enforcement of that code of conduct smoother, so it wouldn't be wasted effort. --Tgr (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm challenged with diplomatic sweet talking so I put it directly:
"why should ... be excluded from the recommendations" - maybe because WMF does not want a voting by the community but according your own statment; FAQ: We are aiming to get a sense would have taken seriously? Most of the feedback is negative. So what more is needed to get a sense? ... For me even more a point to know WMF wants that strategy thing get through regardless of what the community (the one its talking about on the page) thinks or feels. ...Sicherlich Post 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

such as VPN, IP masking, Tor, etc.[edit]

Due to shear volume of vandalism these things are blocked on sight and this is unlikely to change. Yes there is ipblockexempt but that is heavily targeted by would be sock puppeteers and is probably not scale-able.Geni (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Code of Conduct draft?[edit]

We have a Universal Code of Conduct page, but no draft to look at or work on. Could someone please start one so we have something concrete to discuss instead of trying to evaluate vaporware? EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT: recommendations for a 2030 movement strategy need to be written on a high level, otherwise we risk them becoming obsolete by the end of the year, not to mention the decade. Creating strategy is a high level of effort, not something that can be sustained permanently or re-initiated every year because we changed our mind on some detail. So this recommendation declares the need for having a shared set of core values that are actually enforceable across all wikis; the exact details of those values, how they are best phrased, the details of enforcement etc. will have to be defined in a separate movement-wide discussion. While being written at a high level makes it harder to engage with the document, to do otherwise really isn't feasible for a strategy document. --Tgr (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: I see you brought this up on the Universal Code of Conduct talk page. That's probably a better place to ask. I hope the folks there can get back to you about your suggestion. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
So, Tgr, how can we decide we support something we can't even see? If there isn't a concrete proposal for it, I oppose it on principle, as I believe "codes of conduct" are best handled on a project-by-project basis. A set of suggestions for young projects, sure, but not an enforceable mandate. (And who's going to enforce it if the community doesn't support it? T&S? That worked out great last time...). Seraphimblade (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If the projects wanted to handle "Codes of Conduct", they would have done that already, but the projects can't or don't even want to address trivial civility violations, such as bullying, hounding or harassment. How would these projects be able to create a Code of Conduct? My impression is that this loud opposition from a vocal group is just a refusal of clearer civility standards. The UCoC is a cooperative project, requested by a significant proportion of the hundred thousands of editors from the wider movement, made necessary by the inability of the individual projects to take steps in this regard. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
"The UCoC is [...] requested by a significant proportion of the hundred thousands of editors from the wider movement". Could you point us towards the evidence for this claim? Here's my summary of the limited level of support that has been presented publicly. EddieHugh (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: if you reject the idea of cross-project policies about behavior, what would you do about projects which refuse to treat repeated misbehavior as a problem? E.g. what do you think would be the way forward with the problems raised for hrwiki, a project that is by no means young? --Tgr (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not particularly familiar with how allegations of abuse by administrators are handled on projects without an ArbCom or other mechanisms of removal. I know Commons has a community-driven process for removal of admins due to misconduct. It may be that such things have to be handled at the global level when projects are too small or new to have established processes for handling such incidents (just as checkuser and suppression are handled by stewards for projects which have not yet appointed the requisite number of functionaries to oversee the process), but that should be considered a transitional growth phase, not a permanent state of affairs. Seraphimblade (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Too small compared to what? The one in the example is a wiki with two hundred thousand articles, and over one and half decade old. --Tgr (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hr-wiki is being looked at by a meta-discussion, and Steward consensus in the past (such as with az-wiki) has allowed for removal of admins if overwhelming meta-Community consensus calls for it. It almost deliberately doesn't have rules surrounding it - basically requiring a de novo solution everytime Meta wants to judge local. That difficulty is less a bug and more a feature, a UCOC would make it much easier for external action - this would obviously solve some problems earlier, but it would also cause action where non should be made, such as where Communities deliberately have different action-point levels. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
5% support and 95% opposition would be a significant portion of support. It seems the makers of the consultation decided against asking explicitely in their consultations whether or not a majority of the community supports having a code of conduct. Maybe it's because they don't care for the answer or whether they know it would produce an answer that doesn't support their recommendations. In any case there was no attempt at creating any legitimicy for that proposal and that means it's a proposal for fighting a conflict between the WMF and the community that currently sets policy via RfCs. That conflict of course will make the atmosphere more hostile but it seems the activists at the WMF generally feel good when they create conflicts and can feel like they are fighting for the right cause. It would have been great if instead of proposing fighting conflicts the "Provide for Safety and Security" recommendation would have been about reducing the tensions in our community. ChristianKl❫ 17:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Prior Community Consensus against Universal Code of Conduct[edit]

The two prior consultations gave extremely clear consensuses against a UCOC. There was also a failure to answer questions on it by WG members, which handicapped further consideration, and probably further spiked consensus against it.

@CKoerner (WMF):, I'm therefore unsure about why it's here, since either it's a failed interpretation of the consensus and should now be removed, or it's ignoring the actual nature of a consultation on recommendations, and a clear statement, delivered to every single wikipedia, should be made that a UCOC will be implemented regardless of meta-Community consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nosebagbear (talk)

I disagree that there is anything remotely close to a “consensus.” A lot of people, including myself, chose not to respond earlier for various reasons. Or if we responded, it was brief and buried in the avalanche of commentary by those who responded to everyone else’s comments with multiple tl;dr. In short, unless there is something like a secret ballot, where votes are cast without identifying information, some people are simply going to avoid making their opinions public. Montanabw (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see how <100 unexplained "No" votes could qualify as a
  1. a consensus based on the merits of the comments
  2. a concensus of the wider movement, which includes hundreds of thousands of editors.
Please study en:WP:CON and give more consideration for what you claim as a fact. Slowing down might also help with signing your comments. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 13:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A 3rd consideration of support or opposition[edit]

Three options are given for demonstrating the current state of the Community (cross-language, cross-project) consensus on the existence of a binding UCOC (as opposed to a model set etc).

The "Oppose" group may benefit from clarifying whether the oppose is a general viewpoint against the WMF bringing in a binding UCOC to every project, or whether it's based on the lack of a current draft version.

Please add translated/collapsed translated versions if you can and think it would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nosebagbear (talk)


  • Support A code of conduct is important when humans are working with one another. Otherwise we risk the most aggressive individuals taking over a project. I don't see code of conduct as being a problem. These have been used in real life public spaces with good effect (Conventions, etc). How we enforce such a thing is important and I'm glad to see transparency as an important goal here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A universal code will be, by its nature, broad and general. But elsewhere I compared it to international law and things like the en:Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A broad consensus-generated code is not going to be slapping around the Brits for saying “bloody hell,” or even a Yank for saying “f-—off,“ but, for example, where an editing dispute escalates to outing and off-wiki harassment, (people have been outed, tracked down in real life, and harassed) one hopes that is something that can be universally condemned. Montanabw (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
When the UN found the British violated Assange's human rights the British just ignored the UN. It doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. Without any enforcement a universal code of conduct on Wikidata wouldn't change much about the status quo and the problem that the code produces come from the power struggles around enforcing it. ChristianKl❫ 17:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Support We are a growing movement and it is important we can work together. We already today have problem between enwp community and rests of the movement in values and style, with hampers exchange of ideas and information. Yger (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I've had experience following and also applying a Code of Conduct in real life (meatspace) and online too. Being more conscious and mindful about our conduct benefits us as a person, our relationship, the atmosphere we create around us and the community we are a part of. Online communities have gone very far into unwholesome human interactions and Wikipedia is part of that culture. It's hard and takes diligence to improve the societal norms in these communities. That is the purpose of a Code of Conduct, which has proven very successful in open-source communities – most similar to Wikimedia's community – and was adopted (Contributor Covenant adopters) by almost all projects in recent years. It's become an industry standard. As such having a CoC in the Wikimedia Movement is an obvious yes. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 14:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - the WMF, and T&S, have not demonstrated a capability to engage with the Community at a level necessary for me to be happy for a UCOC. There are distinct indications they're attempting to railroad the online consensus of the global Community. There's no way of knowing where a UCOC would end up, and what structures would be forced to change for it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose a binding UCOC that applies to every project. The lack of a draft (despite one being requested for a very long time) raised suspicions that a UCOC was being forced through despite opposition. These suspicions have now been officially confirmed in the "A movement process" section of this page: the WMF has decided to "gather information about what that code of conduct could include and to begin drafting it in the next few months". This link also shows that the WMF has been planning a draft UCOC for months. Reasons to oppose a UCOC have been made numerous times before and are enough for me to oppose here. But the WMF and its funded bodies pretending to consult communities is arrogant and rude, and I oppose for that reason too. EddieHugh (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose There's never been any consensus for a binding/mandated/forced UCoC. It does not make sense to have a vote on a theoretical abstract UCoC. In theory, it would make sense to have a policy for clean streets, that does not mean I want to see people arrested when they drop litter. Until there is a credible example, there is no common understanding of what its limits would be, whether people would be banned without the chance to examine evidence or appeal, whether the result would be a cross-project anonymous "security police" with no external accountability or transparent governance, or whether the policies that govern implementation would be made up and changed by privileged WMF employees off the cuff or the (unpaid) volunteer community would engineer them with credible good consultation. -- (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose The attempts of WMF to enforce code of conducts have produced huge amounts of hostility in our community already and this repeated attempt after the last RfC that rejected is just a project that will create more drama. ChristianKl❫ 17:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


  • Oppose Oppose without a draft and consensus after a publicised RfC. I would Support Support having an publicised RfC and discussion, binding upon the WMF and administered in a normal manner (e.g. like an enwiki RfC, commons proposals, a dewiki MB (I think that's what they call it), etc.) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

General Discussion[edit]

  • Personally I'd suggest that a model code of conduct would be a better approach, non-binding (except perhaps for new wiki projects/language variants created in the future). It would give good grounds for discussion and actively engaging with a community as to where issues might be without forcing compliance and spectacular backlash. I don't believe it would have been possible at all anyway, but confidence from en-wiki and de-wiki (I've heard bits and pieces from zh and Dutch as well, but less sure on them) in T&S has dropped heavily in 2019. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A movement process[edit]

Hi all, I wanted to briefly reflect on some of the comments I have been reading on this page and try to create more clarity. This strategy process is not a WMF process, it’s a movement process. Yes, the WMF Board of Trustees has commissioned this work, and the WMF is resourcing it. The work was produced and the recommendations were written by members of the movement, from across the movement, following consultation with contributors to the movement on and offline across the world.

There will be a separate, WMF led, community consultation to gather information about what that code of conduct could include and to begin drafting it in the next few months, so I would like to encourage all of you who have an interest in this topic to contribute to this consultation. You can find more information on that in this post on Wikimedia Space and this page on Meta: Universal Code of Conduct. Thanks, --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are we being asked to comment on a proposal to have a universal code of conduct when the WMF has already decided "to gather information about what that code of conduct could include and to begin drafting it"? This is official confirmation that, as in previous 'consultations', editors opposing a universal code of conduct are being ignored. EddieHugh (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, EddieHugh. I'm sorry if my comment linked here wasn't clear. The Foundation decided to gather information because we were asked to do so as the strategy recommendations were evolving. Feedback from international communities made it clear to the volunteer working groups early that this was likely to emerge as a recommendation, and there was concern that if we waited to start figuring out what factors of such a code were important that it might take an unreasonably long time to have the implementation considered if the strategy recommendations were adopted. The technical spaces code of conduct took quite some time to finalize - I think close to two years.
As you obviously know, some of these conversations are already happening. For instance, here are some of the thoughts surfaced from Wikimania and CEE. The next phase of information gathering is to once again go out to international communities, with liaisons in multiple languages so we can assemble and present input from across the movement. Whether or not a Universal Code of Conduct is the output, I myself strongly believe that clarity around what people are saying on this issue broadly will be helpful. For instance, both as a long term editor (though shamefully inactive for a while) and as staff of the Foundation, I have seen conflicts across the movement when people engage in different projects without awareness of different cultural norms.
There's no intention to ignore people who don't want a Universal Code of Conduct, but it will be very helpful rather than "oppose" and "support" to understand why, and also to understand--if a UCoC is adopted--how that Code can be very clear to support healthy interactions without leading to the challenges that are causing some people to oppose. If a Code is not adopted, it's equally important to understand what alternatives might be appropriate to address issues noted by those who support.
I'm sorry that this is likely to be a drive-by comment, but being aware that my post may have caused some confusion wanted to try to clarify. I'm getting ready to travel for a few weeks and so can't really engage. If there are more questions, though, those more directly engaged in the project probably can at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

is not a WMF process - I disagree. Its a WMF process. Its wanted by the WMF, its initiated by the WMF and its result is decided by the WMF. As one can see in the FAQ the "Movment" is not asked if they accept the outcome but someone called We (WMF i guess) is "aiming to get a sense" (if this we there is not WMF than who?) - its even unclear how these recommendation here made it from the previous step.
This does not mean its bad by itself. But pressing this as "we, the movement" sounds like lame to me.
CoC: oh an other page where one can talk about it. I thought just Talk:Universal Code of Conduct. but funny that you wrote what that code of conduct could include - so this strategy Recommendation" is decided already. (Its said before, I just want to point out that this "consultation" is not a serious one. Its already decided.
... From my point of view the issue with this CoC is the missing trust towards WMF. This CoC can easily used by WMF to justify things like Superprotect and Framban as a code without enforcment is useless - this distrust is even stronger if one checks who was involved in Superprotect and Framban and who is now leader of the "department" which is driving this CoC-thing. A coincidence? 🤔
...Sicherlich Post 10:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Time will tell, but I'm not optimistic about how much attention is being paid to on-wiki community feedback either. The various versions of the timeline suggest that "movement endorsement" will move smoothly into "implementation". Based on that, the only choice the "movement" has is "endorsement". EddieHugh (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Highlights from the Arabic Speaking Conversations - Provide for Safety and Security[edit]

On the first week of community conversations, 10 members of the Online Arabic speaking community engaged in discussing the fourth recommendation "Provide for Safety and Security" on the Arabic Wikipedia Facebook group. Generally, comments supported the ideas of the recommendations, especially the following points:

  • Allow editing through VPN to ensure a more neutral content, and to protect endangered Wikimedians (90%)
  • Create a joint Universal Code of Conduct to be followed by all (80%)
  • Enforce emergency path for Wikimedians in imminent danger, because the current T&S work and support is incredibly slow (70%)

One member expressed concerns regarding the use of tools such as VPN: "Even if it comes from a good intention, but allowing the use of VPN and Tor might encourage trolls and vandalizers to use it a lot and disturb and destroy our projects. Some people will use the idea of privacy and being anonymous to do bad things, and be covered. For example, by hiding information on their user group (because they will receive it in a private email - privacy), or by telling lies to the WMF or T&S or any other organizations, which cannot be traced (privacy), so this can have repercussions on the well-being of the community, and many groups can have internal problems, especially if they do not know who is the person causing these problems and hiding under the cover of “privacy”".

The same member asks that the recommendation does not remain "open" and "vague" about tools such as VPN, but rather that it mentions explicitely that these tools will/can only be enabled only for the protection (and then the implementation team need to figure out how this can be assessed and done).

ASedrati (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has been advocating a re-examination of the opposition to VPNs for quite a while now, I certainly agree with the first point. Aside from the obvious - that an ever-increasing number of internet users come to rely on VPNs for their purported security benefits - many public places (e.g., internet cafes, libraries, some universities and colleges) are now using VPNs. As well, many users use a VPN service for other reasons (e.g., telecommuting), and requiring them to *turn off* their VPN in order to edit is most likely to result in their not editing/not creating an account/participating.
I also share concerns about the scalability of the current "emergency@" system. I'm aware that there's someone on call 24/7, but there's good reason to believe that the system doesn't have good connections to some countries in the world, and it's likely that many projects and users are completely unaware that there's something now, let alone how to reach it or use it. My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of utilization comes from English Wikipedia and/or people who have found out about the system from an English Wikipedian or a steward. I have really serious concerns about a universal code of conduct (many of the "must haves" described by various groups are impossible to enforce, especially on multicultural projects), but think a model code of conduct might be useful. For example, some groups have suggested that a *required* part of a code of conduct would be proscribing "bad language" on a project. Except in projects with a very small group of participants who all have a common culture and linguistic usage, this is nearly impossible to apply. (Example: there are some people who consider the English word "bloody" to be completely unacceptable, but in other geographies it is considered a very mild epithet, along the lines of "darn".) Any universal COC should have no more than 10 points, and would preferably have only 5. Risker (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
As usual, Risker is fairly on form throughout. Personally, I'm not sure how the negatives of VPN unblocking could be effectively mitigated, but I'd be willing enough to take it to implementation stage and see if some compromise could be found. A model code of conduct definitely looks like a good way to go. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Illustrative image and the not-so subliminal message[edit]

Wikimedia 2018-20 Recommendation 04.svg

This may seem a trivial point to raise, but I am unsure of where else to raise it. The choices made with cartoon illustrations are slightly disturbing. There are 13 cartoons in this series, see search, and all the simple Wikimedian figures appear white, with only this image showing figures wearing clothes. The choice of clothing for the "security officiers" is disturbing, they are made to look like secret service agents, all in black wearing gloves, sunglasses and using radio headphones. This implies that by "Safety and Security" we need special police who never make eye contact and use covert tools to do their job. The meaning of this might have been a mistake but the subliminal messaging is clear:

  • Security and safety is achieved by employing special police officers, not volunteers
  • Security happens using special tools, covertly watching people and having secret conversations
  • Wikimedians picture themselves as white folks who are all able-bodied and at first glance all look to be male and masculine
  • You don't get to make eye-contact with the Wikimedia police and they are not Wikimedians

The umbrella providing a nice environment for a Wikimedian to do some editing while it carries on raining I can understand, not the negative men-in-black theme.

All rather off-putting and appears a choice that presupposes that employees in uniforms do this special paid job, rather than volunteers who might do most of the real work involved in ensuring the volunteer environment feels safe and secure. -- (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The umbrella makes sure you don't get all information but the ones selected by the special forces. ... my first thought when I saw the picture 😉 ...Sicherlich Post 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey  ! I'd be really curious to know what you would have drawn instead ? I often work with cartoon artists myself and I know illustrating abstract notions is not easy. Maybe the artist just went for a cliché image of security because it would be easily understood (I personally find the result quite funny^^). But if you have a better idea it would be great - sincerely.
Sicherlich Ahah going far here. Maybe assume good faith? :p --Opsylac (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Raising my perspective of these series of cartoons about apparently white Wikipedians doing things, with the support of special black suited employees being separate from them, does not mean that I am obligued to produce better cartoons. If we want to show diversity and working collegiately is critical to our movement, then the illustrations we use should show that, not the opposite.
My understanding of "Safety and Security" is that Wikimedians in their every-day activities can contribute in a safe and secure environment that also feels secure without risking feeling oppressive. Personally I would feel very unsafe and unsecure if FBI agents were surrounding me while I went out shopping. As I alluded, the umberella analogy is a reasonable one, but you don't actually need someone in a black suit to hold it over you. -- (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Opsylac AGF? "my first thought" - sorry for my thought? .oO Next time I try to think as it is appropriate .oO ...Sicherlich Post 12:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Die Gedanken sind frei nur sagen darf man sie nicht

Feedback from LGBT Community[edit]

Recommendation No #4: Provide for Safety and Security

Over 5-7 individuals commented on the LGBT+ Telegram channel and 2-3 individuals commented during the monthly Meeting of January.

Reaction to Recommendations as a Whole Overall, the recommendations were supported but were found to be missing proper context along with questions about the language used in the recommendations by some members of LGBT+ community.

Individual Feedback on Content

There was discontentment by a member with the Safety and Security section about the missing value on what is said and how this will help Wikimedians exposed to attacks on virtual and physical level. It was mentioned that there are only vague mentions of 'diversity', it's not clear why this has been the approach taken with no noticeable visibility of LGBT+ stakeholders. On earlier stages, there have been mention of women, LGBT+ people, and various other demographics which seems to be missing context now. It was also commented that the translated version of the strategy recommendation should have gender neutral tone which seems to be missing.

Feedback on Language

There was an issue raised about the language used in strategy does not conform to the standards with the reference to security being implicated as anonymity which points to the disconnection with real life security issues faced by Wikimedians in multiple contexts. The document feels like American terminology and language, with sentences, such as, "The Movement is composed of communities and individuals from all over the world. This diversity and richness of perspectives is essential in moving towards knowledge equity, " that implies that community has no issue prevalent for the movement diversity.

Missing emphasis on enforcement of Security Plan

It was pointed out that the recommendations focus only about the prevention, which is something good, but which is definitely not enough, especially as many users continue allowing themselves to judge and exclude others without getting punished. RSharma (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

implies that community has no issue prevalent for the movement diversity Can you please clarify what you mean here, RSharma (WMF)? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Vexations, I have been a witness to that part of the original conversation, and the phrase you just quoted means that the person commenting was under the impression that saying "we have a diverse community" somehow sounds like the work for more diversity is already done, as if it was taken for granted while in fact the current community is not diverse enough yet. --DRanville (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There is an underlying assumption about diversity in these conversations that is problematic. It is that members of a minority group will solve the lack of diversity in our content. Lack of diversity is everybody's problem. We can not expect members of a minority group to be solely responsible for writing all the content about that group, not would that be healthy. Providing more diverse perspectives to some topics is sometimes desirable, but not always. We shouldn't look for more homeopaths to contribute to our article on Homeopathy. A trans artist friend of mine recently mentioned that they were expected to make trans-identity based art, and how annoying that is, because they're more than that. As for myself: I have no interest whatsoever in contributing to topics that intersect with my many identities. I think that maintaining critical distance is healthy. Vexations (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the viewpoint of the majority of English Wikipedians, based on the openly vitriolic complaints about LGBT+ activists and gender warriors. Today it is okay for Wikipedians to complain that a woman is editing articles about women, or that a trans person is editing articles about trans people, and try to get them blocked or topic banned for any relatively minor slip up. The folks that do this get lionized by their pals in lockerroom fashion by making snide offensive comments to each other on their talk pages about the extremist lobbyists. Perhaps one day we will be able to contribute in a positive community where encyclopaedic value is gained by encouraging subject matter experts to edit their topics of interest, rather than feeling we must do so in secret. -- (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That's really not helpful. I'm not your enemy. I have never made vitriolic complaints about LGBT+ activists and gender warriors, nor have I made snide offensive comments [...] about the extremist lobbyists. I do not engage in locker-room talk. I do not support excluding subject-matter experts. I welcome diverse perspective, but without opening the gates to the likes of Scientology. I wanted to make the point that people of privilege cannot simply assume that oppressed people are under any obligation to explain their privilege to them. I hope you can agree to that? Vexations (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
No, ensuring that we support minority groups to have access and a voice rather than being shut out or hounded out by the majority, is hardly the same thing as forcing minority groups to "explain privilage". That's backwards logic. -- (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I expressed so poorly that you can't seem to find any common ground. Yes, we should support editors from minority groups. We just shouldn't expect them to fix our biased coverage by themselves. Everyone has a role to play in that. You're not proposing that only women should edit articles about women, are you? Vexations (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Portuguese-speaking community[edit]

Two users from Telegram have shown profound support for the psychological assistance and the measures to aid users that are under potential harm. They also agree with the need to create a Code of Conduct and hope that it will be implemented. LTeles (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

--Camillo Cavalcanti (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Thank you for sending efforts to increase our community. My suggestion for knowledge as unique criteria to "type and payment" stops the terrorist action by blockers: they pratice vandalism (on fanatic positions, deleting and blocking CITATIONS AND STATISTICS), but accuse the editor for it.--Camillo Cavalcanti (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Wrong Concepts, topic 4 according official list[edit]

4. Provide AND Safety AND Security

The Knowledge Empire PROVIDES ONLY the knowledge as unique criteria. Safety and Security are synonyms, please! Get out of bla-bla-bla.

Safety/Security DOES MEAN block acts against the people, whether editor or reader, whether biographic articles (remember: the Old Dynasty of Wikimedia on top with the Pharaoh is a kind of editor). There are also acts against the knowledge: untruth.

Acts against the people are vandalism, and so anyone CAN DELETE the offensive text. IT'S NOT NECESSARY a casta or clergy to do this.

Acts against the knowledge are lies. For identification of a lie, it's very clear that the robots, administrators, blockers DO NOT HAVE COMPETENCE for it, unless subscribing yourself as specialist team in each area, selected by testified curriculum.

If these points would be implanted, where do you have a problem with protect the individual and the knowledge??????????????????--Camillo Cavalcanti (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Targeting of editors[edit]

Would this apply to those who target editors who do not share a political ideology of other editors? Would those editors be provided safety and security from harassment and hounding? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It depends. The resources of the WMF or the tolerance of the wider community should not be spent supporting fringe groups that attack the fundamental values of our movement or set out to cause harm or remove basic human rights for other minority groups.
For example, if there were a policy that all fringe groups have to be tolerated, then an anti-trans rights group could easily disrupt every Wikipedia policy discussion about improving how biographies of transwomen are written by lobbying against calling transwomen women and arguing for the trope of "male born" language. Unfortunately, we see this happening too often, but there are healthy limits to how hostile disruption is allowed to be offensive, or allowed to persist so that it drives away minority groups from editing. -- (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Highlights from the Spanish Speaking Conversations - Provide for Safety and Security[edit]

About 70-80 present in conversations at different degrees (not everyone said something, of course).There is agreement with the recommendation's objective and it is seen very useful, specially in LatAm context.

People is not afraid of VPN usage, they apreciate the advantage it would offer. One user suggested that currently, VPN can only be used by flaged users. That binds users to edit only with their account, so, losing some privacy (users can be tracked by their edits). In the other hand, there are also concerns on how VPN technology could be used by trolls and lot legitimate users. Also, there are complaints about previous failures and limitations of WMF in this field.--FFort (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Highlights from the Catalan Speaking (Valencian) Conversations - Provide for Safety and Security[edit]

About five people present in different ways, giving feedback via both formal and informal channels. Different backgrounds.

Complaints about the brading process and its effect in adverse societies. Another criticism is the universal code of conduct. Some find it intrusive to the competences of the communities, but there are also those who think that they represent a defense of individuals and minorities with respect to the majority in certain situations.

Given the high number of complains about how the WMF has lacked resources and tools when giving safety to harassed editors or community members in potentially dangerous situations, it is suggested that, rather than reinventing the wheel inside of WMF, safety should be "outsourced" in a partnership with an institution who has experience in such situations.--FFort (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Security problem in Portuguese Wikipedia[edit]

Hey everybody,

What kind of Security/Safety exists if a robot blocks me because I told this kind of action in candidature pages??? This robot invaded my account and created 32 guarded pages????

Security??????????? I denounced this fact to user LTeles, he deleted my post and the same robot blocks me for three days? Is it a criminous organization?

They deleted my comments on cadidature pages:

This man got out of own candidature

Safety???? I guess I prove the terrorism of the wiki-structure. We need KNOWLEDGE AS UNIQUE CRITERIA.

Please, does anyone help me????????????????--Camillo Cavalcanti (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that the user continues to spread false information here. A full and detailed chronology of the case was included by me in the discussion about his block. Among the offenses published by Camilo, he even compared volunteers to "ISIL terrorists". Érico (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello, Camillo Cavalcanti. I am sorry to learn that you have been experiencing negative interactions on Wikipedia. As I tried to explain on your talk page, it seems to be related with several misunderstandings about how Wikipedia pages work and how they can be changed by other users. I watched closely your case and there is no sign so far of any use of robot, nor privacy violation. I hope you will feel better after the explanations and, please, keep in touch if you have any other concern. LTeles (WMF) (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Hindi Community Members for Provide for Safety and Security Recommendation[edit]

Overall, this recommendation was supported by more than 10-11 individuals. It was mentioned that safety is essential and the current structures and governance models should have enforcement of code of conduct with standard universal standards that can be applied on all Wikimedia spaces for better community health. 6 users agreed on more support for conflict management and a standard code of conduct. It was mentioned that this can be helpful for communities that have no or little governance that affects decision making and consequently community health of community. It was suggested that universal code of conduct must have cultural inclusion for supporting members to follow behavioral standards for different events, on-wiki and for social media interactions for community discussions to promote friendly environment amongst the community. RSharma (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Wikiwomen Office Hours from February 4 and February 9[edit]

Overall support by ten women. It was mentioned that currently there is no real plan in place that can support people, where they can access information for safety culture. It was agreed that a universal code of conduct is needed as a basic standard for all online and offline communities. External factors and how they impact and affect Wikimedia volunteers need to be worked on. Harassment and safety protocols for emergency response need to be expressed more. Implementation of safety culture needs to be implemented in relevance to culture, region and communities. It should be ensured that universal security and safety regulations are flexible enough to fit and work well with all communities taking in context for cultural relevance and local inputs. Global charter may not apply well in local communities and every project has their own way of dealing with conflict and issues. Inter cultural differences can be hard to implement if contextual needs are not taken in account. It was mentioned that there needs to be more clarity needed on how to enforce such a Code of Conduct, especially providing for protection and safety from external factors. RSharma (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Office Hours from 2 February and 9th February with members from Emerging communities from South Asia and Africa[edit]

Anass Sedrati (Strategy Liaison - Arabic) and Rupika Sharma (Strategy Liaison - Hindi) hosted Office hours on two Sundays (February 2nd and 9th) to discuss with members of Emerging communities from South Asia and Africa. Overall, around 50 people in total participated in either of the calls, representing various areas and regions.

Regarding recommendation 4, there was a strong support from over 30 users from both the meetings. There was also strong support for universal code of conduct by 8-10 users. It was mentioned that a universal set of principles should be applied with room for local context to be applicable to the context.

Participants asked for a number of points to be clarified. These are the following:

  • It was mentioned that the code of conduct should consider the cultural context of communities in its design. It was also expressed that the community should have more control on application of code of conduct than the institution of Wikimedia Foundation. There can be inspiration taken from the existing codes of conduct particularly the Mediawiki.
  • It was commented by another user that there should be more room to accommodate our differences and diversity. So we can breakdown the global guides to the different context of our diverse community.
  • Another suggestion was made for reduction in the timeframe of dispute resolution and to ensure that the process is well documented.
  • It was mentioned that minor language Wikipedia projects usually do not have any code of conduct and having a universal code of conduct can be a guidance for small Wiki projects.
  • WMF needs to provide more support towards securities, people living in dangerous communities and advocacy. There should support provided for affiliates for accessing lawyers for helping them create bylaws, code of conduct and terms of use for the affiliate members. There should be relaxation in allowing TOR and VPN to protect identities of Wikimedians from sensitive regions of world. But this should be only for registered users instead of IP addresses. VPN should be allowed for registered users not IP users because that can be blocked. There is a lot of work that should be done concerning Trust and Safety.

Regards -- ASedrati (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So around 80% didn't express strong support for a UCoC? The numbers are confusing here. EddieHugh (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Portuguese-speaking community[edit]

Female user on Telegram - We have to create spaces of trust, where users know that they will be respected, will not be harassed or suffer sexist jokes. Where they are free to participate without fear of being wrong.

Comments by a Wikimedia Portugal member:

  • It’s a very extensive recommendation and may have a broad interpretation unless we can define what is the “usual” or “expected” behaviour standard. We shouldn’t expect an environment impossible to achieve, which is also not desired, and then punish those that wouldn’t follow it. That would lead to more problems than solutions. That is a very important recommendation and that is why it should be taken with care.
  • Conflict resolution path should be clear and accessible.
  • Code of Conduct, as a tool to determine a behavioural standard, should be enough broad to allow freedom of speech and honest discussion, with the proper limit on restriction so it can have a realistic use. It’s, perhaps, a very difficult balance to reach.
  • The possibility of anonymization is important. However, it shouldn’t be imposed if stakeholders wouldn’t like to have it.

LTeles (WMF) (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)