Talk:Training modules/Online harassment/Final draft

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

Re: section on "Immediate action: Blocking users"[edit]

I realize the current practice is to block or ban users who are harassed - I cannot name any user who has spoken out against harassment who is still in good standing and actively editing - but I do not believe users who are being harassed should be blocked.

Also I do believe the section "Removal of non-public personal information" needs to be given the highest priority. PII should be reverted immediately to make suppression easier, and users should be informed of how to get PII removed.

Your section "Handling personal information: Responding to posters of PII" has a confusing statement that "deliberate PII release" ... "could also include leaking personal emails or other communication which could be compromising". It is not clear if this includes correspondence that is in violation of policy. For example, if someone sends you a harassing email or obtains your email address then attempts a DDoS attack on you, according to this policy you cannot reveal these attacks, which most people would regard as harassment; if you did you would be vulnerable to immediate and harsh retaliatory admin action that could not be appealed.

Finally, the section on "Handling personal information: What not to do – The 'Streisand effect'" is totally confusing. "There is every chance that such an action will raise suspicion and that the reason for the suppression might be questioned. Be sure to clarify this risk with the reporter and ensure they are willing to take the potential extra scrutiny." This sounds like a polite, bureaucratic, and very firm refusal to remove the information. The information was public, where anyone in the universe could read it, but onceit has been removed it has become unpublic. How is this drawing attention? It is gone. Also you have sent a message to the person posting it - and to every functionary who can see the unsuppressed version - that the WMF is serious about enforcing its privacy policy. The message you are currently sending is very much the opposite. —Neotarf (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)