Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2017-09

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 September 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

WMF principal place in California but still registered in Florida?

Hello. I've been asking myself this question for some time and I though I could post it here so maybe someone could help me understand. WMF headquarters are located in California, and our Terms of Use do mention only California in para. 13.; but strangely for me WMF is still registered in Florida as the State of Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations displays. Their counterpart on the State of California confirms that. I am not an US citizen nor know about corporation laws there, so I apologize if this is a dumb question but why WMF is still registered in Florida when it's been years that their opeations are being done in California? Is it about taxes? More flexible corporation rules? I'm going to ping User:JVillagomez (WMF), maybe he can share some info. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarcoAurelio - it was incorporated in Florida because, at the time, Jimmy Wales lived there. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
(To expand a bit, it's just a massive pain to reincorporate a nonprofit.) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF): Hi and thanks for your reply. I knew we all started in Florida but it looks a bit strange to have it incorporated there. Even if it is a pain, maybe the Foundation should consider reincorporating it in California or --if such a thing exist-- make it a federal nonprofit. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A wiki of company ethics?

I've been looking for a database or website that provides information on company ethics -- I haven't been able to find one (please share the link if you know of one!).

Would this be a good theme for a wiki project?

Everyone has different ethics, so I don't think a one-size-fits-all ethical report would work. However we could define some standard categories (workers-rights, consumer-rights, environmental, equality, honesty, corruption, charitable-work, etc.), then list the good and bad for each. Readers can then focus on what matters to them.

On a related note: If anyone knows of an ontology that might be applicable for corporate ethics, please share the link.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm new to Wikimedia Forum -- If this is not the best place to post this, please let me know where I should.

Thank you & Kind regards, --Winterstein (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Winterstein: I suggest you inquire about this at Wikiversity. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure I follow. Wikiversity is for teaching materials? This would be a place for collating data, much like Wikipedia. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Winterstein: I may have misunderstood what you had in mind, then. If it's a matter of collating data, but more specialized than what Wikipedia does, then you should consider Wikibooks. An important difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks is in the projects' attitudes toward original research; I had thought you were describing something OR-ish, but if it's collating data, that sounds more like a wikibook.

Btw, to ping me, use markup {{ping|Pi zero}}, which looks like this:

@Pi zero:
--Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Linking to other Wikimedia projects

On the Dutch Wikipedia, there is a discussion (again) whether it's possible NOT to link to Wikiquote or Wikinews if "we from Wikipedia" think the quality of the article on Wikiquote or Wikinews is below our standards. On WP-NL, we are quite strict in our "not too much external links"-policy, en for me, these are external links as well. Who agrees with me that this decision is up to the WP-NL editors? If not, why? Kind regards, Vinvlugt (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a sticky issue, no doubt. Cooperation and self-determination, mixed together. My own opinion is that
  • we're all projects in the sisterhood together, and should support each other with links, whether between sisters within a language, or between languages; and
  • it would be deeply unwise for one project to try to judge the "quality" of articles on another project, both because
  • users on one project are statistically unlikely to be qualified to judge another project — for the most part, they will misjudge another project because they'll apply the goals, techniques, and context of their own project to another project where all those things may be different — and
  • a basic wiki principle is that increased exposure leads to increased quality, so it would be philosophically inconsistent for a wiki to seek to reduce the exposure of another wiki because it perceives the other to have insufficient quality.
A striking example of the differing-standards effect is that English Wikinews and English Wikipedia have different approaches to neutrality, so that it's quite possible for a Featured Article on either project to fail neutrality by the other project's criteria. It would be very silly for us to refuse to link to each other's articles on that basis.

Self-determination is a stickier question, though. Successful democratic societies have to evolve ways to protect minorities against abuse by majorities; and while the wikimedian sisterhood is imho rather weak on this sort of protection, one important principle we do have is that the different wikis don't tell each other what to do, which somewhat protects small wikis against bullying by large wikis. However, removing links from a larger wiki to a smaller one can be a form of bullying, or outright warfare, against the smaller wiki. So, perhaps basic interwiki links (provided they're aren't done intrusively) should be required as an anti-bullying measure? --Pi zero (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment each wiki is perfectly entitled to make their rules about linking. It also needs to be remembered that linking is a two-way street. So make your decisions wisely, not based on a rule alone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Linking is a local content matter. A wiki could chose not to use any links at all (zero external links, zero sister project links, and even zero [[wikilinks]]). Alsee (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

censorship on wikipedia and persecution

пишу українською буде бажання і головне спроба це вирішити перекладуть (I will write in Ukrainian it will be a desire and the main attempt to solve it will translate). Мене цікавить переслідування мене збоку адміністраторів УкрВікі. виявляється таке можливе Блокування. До слова я перед цим просив вилучити мою СО. Всі проігнорували моє прохання, а відтепер ще і пишіть мені на тій СО все що завгодно. --Jphwra (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't Wikimedia_Forum#Why_can_not_I_remove_a_discussion_page_at_the_user.27s_request.3F enough? Stryn (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Stryn But is there any result? Why is the opinion opposite from admins immediately blocked? And so to the word have achieved only the care of active editors. With further oppression of those who went. --Jphwra (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding "Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation"

There is currently a RfC open on Meta regarding "requiring those involved with paid editing on Wikipedia to link on their user page to all other active accounts through which they advertise paid Wikipedia editing business."

Note this is to apply to Wikipedia and not necessarily other sister projects, this is only to apply to websites where people are specifically advertising that they will edit Wikipedia for pay and not any other personal, professional, or social media accounts a person may have.

Please comment on meta. Thanks. Send on behalf of User:Doc James.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Transwiki project


I am working in a project in for the development of the article of Fiódor Dostoiévski and all his works. In the research I have realized, that the different wikiprojects are not good connected, ex: with my research for the article from Wikipedia, I can help the Wikicommons, Wikisource, Wikiquote and the Wikibooks. I would like to start a transwiki project, first about this theme as an experiment. How can I formalize it?

Thanks, --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Some examples of transwiki: a) the quotations from Wikipedia, can go automatic to Wikiquote; b) articles from a specific project from Wikipedia (Russian literature, or Fyodor Dostoyevsky, etc) can go for a wikibook after some edition; c) Wikipedia can create an automatic link for the books (one link to each book) of Wikisource, (we add some links from free books manually), etc. Obs: We can use the transwiki project about Dostoyevsky as a test.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Violation of the terms of use in Spanish Wikipedia

My problem is that I've been unfoundedly accused of harassment by various administrators in Despite the lack of evidence, I've been banned and my talk page has been protected forever (Taichi, the involved administrator who banned me, claimed that I had "confessed" the harassment for which there is no evidence—which of course I never did). After my ban, the unfounded acusations continued for weeks with an extraordinary insistence [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Nowhere does anyone provide any evidence for these accusations—there isn't; I've never harassed anyone.

I've tried to contact some of these administrators here in Meta. I have asked Jmvkrecords here and Hans Topo1993 here to please support their harassment accusations with evidence, or to take them back. Both have refused. They claim that I have no right to ask for evidence anywhere besides—where I cannot edit—so they can get away with repeatedly calling someone a harasser without evidence in a Wikimedia project.

But the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation state that users may not engage in Harassing and Abusing Others. Unfoundedly acusing someone of harassment is a personal attack, as expressed in en:WP:Harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. Therefore, by repeatedly and unfoundedly accusing me of harassment, these administrators are violating the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I would like the unfounded accusations of harassment, which are false and constitute a violation of the Terms of Use, to be taken back. How should I proceed? Thank you. Atón (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to offer the general overview of the case.
Notice the fact, I (we) did have reasons to make our statements about this user.
Not intending to engage in an argument, I won't write here again. Hans Topo1993 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

See what I mean? Hans Topo1993 and co. cannot provide a single diff. I will provide all the details necessary in a formal resolution process, I have absolutely nothing to hide. What is the proper venue to resolve a violation of the Terms of Use? Thank you. Atón (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop working of Russian Wikinews

To attention the administrators of Russian Wikipedia: Indefinite blocking two experienced and active participants in the Russian Wikipedia (User:Леонид Макаров and User:Krassotkin) is an unprecedented case in the Russian Wikipedia. The stated reason for blocking as a violation of the rules of the Foundation Wikimedia for the article in Russian Wikinews does not reflect the principles of the Foundation and will not bring any benefit to the work of the two projects. Please analyze this situation once again and to speak to the Forum administrators of Russian Wikipedia, not to keep silent. Block with the motivation in the name of the benefit Foundation and to prevent possible damage to the Foundation is nonsense.--Леонид Макаров (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia, I believe, still has an Arbitration Committee. All such issues should be solved in the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: Wikinews is a sister project. It is not Wikipedia. Generally a sister project may operate on its own policies and governance, not on that of Wikipedia. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a Russian Wikipedia issue, not a Russian Wikinews issue. The users are blocked on the Russian Wikiedia, which has, at least on paper, working dispute resolution mechanism. Stewards are not allowed to intervene in the projects which have Arbitration Committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
My apologies; it sounded on first reading the other way around, persons blocked for BLP issues on ru.WN. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it is indeed so, they were blocked on Russian Wikipedia for some article(s) they created on Russian Wikinews. --Base (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
(Also if I get what article it was actually about right, it was an article about a recently deceased person, I am not sure if BLP Resolution applies there at all). --Base (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How effective are global locks?

A while ago I wrote this:

":Locking policy 1.

The following is a list of common reasons for global locks. As a general rule, global locks happen rarely and almost always in clear-cut situations. There is no community-approved policy governing global locks, but this list represents de facto practice.

So the community has no say in the fact that my account is locked.

Locking policy 2.

Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active. Accounts whose names are offensive or abusive are also eligible for locking, and may be hidden from logs as well.

One account I had made had an insulting name like that, and that account didn't even vandalise anything (well, the name counts as such).

“and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock.”

By the time my lock was requested no socks had operated outside of the enwiki, Commonswiki, or nlwiki for 2 weeks, and none of my contributions to the nlwiki were disruptive and on Commonswiki I had only made username violations in early July, so I only made non-disruptive edits that fall under WP:EVASION there as can be seen here.

So under what “continued crosswiki threat” is my main account globally locked? As a punishment? That doesn’t seem to conform to any community blocking policy.

Locking policy 3.

Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them.

I have never threatened anyone, and insults and harassing alone doesn't seem ground as can be seen with Classiccardinal, I never published child pornography on any Wikimedia project, nor did I publish anyone's private personal information here either.

Locking policy 4.

Accounts that have been created to evade a community global ban.

Obviously doesn't apply here.

Locking policy 5.

Accounts that are suspected to have been compromised, as a temporary measure to maintain account security until the owner is contacted.

Obviously doesn't apply here.

What this lock bars me from doing.

Well, in the month that I’ve currently been locked I could've launched 5 new articles on Dutch Wikipedia, translated Chinese kèpèngs for Low Saxon Wikipedia and West Frisian Wikipedia, translated 清朝貨幣 for Cantonese Wikipedia, translated 長崎貿易銭 for Vietnamese Wikipedia, added numerous Chữ Nôm to the Vietnamese Wiktionary and English Wiktionary, add numismatic articles to Simple English Wikipedia, and a whole lot more.

However global locks do not prevent any disruptions, they might as well do the opposite as the moment an account gets locked cookie-block no longer works and new accounts can be created where cookie-block previously prevented this act, even if the IP is still autoblocked and only non-anonymous users can edit there are a total of 912 WMF wiki’s as of 2017 and you can make a total of 6 accounts per IP within 24 hours being roughly around 5000 accounts per day that one can make (reached 6 accounts at English Wikipedia? Then go to Simple English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons or Wikivoyage, Etc.), and those accounts can edit again. So does globally locking even prevent vandalism?

Well, you can see new 112 Alex, Fouadadan, and Nipponese Dog Calvero socks being requested for global locks on a daily basis, the people of the University of California at Los Angeles still harass PurpleBackPack89 on a common basis with new socks, and Ukrainian swearing usernames condemning Putin keep popping up at Vietnamese Wikipedia every now and then.

In fact my global lock has been used as an excuse to delete educational encyclopedic content, but doesn't prevent me from making new accounts (which I haven't made since my lock), or making any disruptive edits anywhere (which I also haven't made), so on what grounds does my continued global lock benefit any project?

One more minor note.

My previous global unlock request was denied because of a username I shall abbreviate as “BMOOH30”, this account purely existed on the enwiki and never operated anywhere else, I have already been appropriately blocked locally there (though I care little much about there as I had basically “retired” from mainspace edits mid-July to move on to Dutch Wikipedia, commenting only on AfDs), for this a local block would normally be sufficient.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC) (You know who I am.)"

In which I referred to the fact that some users constantly return such as Nipponese Dog Calvero and the Inoccigible (or however that is spelled) Troll, Etc. Though I am personally of the opinion that locks should have a process of appeal in attempting to rid Wikimedia projects of let's say Nipponese Dog Calvero they seem ineffective, wouldn't a global version of cookie block be more effective? I don't know how the likes of Nipponese Dog, Etc. Operate so maybe it's not device or IP based, but are locks really the most effective way in these cases? --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Donald, you have clearly not recognized why you were blocked in the first place, and why you were locked, and you add extensive -- and uninformed -- "facts" that are not relevant. See the unlock request, the comment of MoiraMoira, and then this "rant," here, for a major cause of the block, I'm sure, without further investigation. Obvious is obvious. You were locked for massive cross-wiki sock puppetry, checkuser-confirmed. This had nothing to do with local behavioral issues.
Clue: for wiki survival, stop arguing about any of this. Take the unlock warning seriously, and the commitment you made, because you got your one chance. There are places and ways where you can write at length, such as on en.Wikiversity -- but only in some places there. Most projects, it will severely irritate users, and when users are severely irritated, blocks are likely to follow. This post was a rant. Your situation actually contradicted what you wrote. Clean it up, your brain will thank you, and everyone else as well.
There are many issues around global locking. Policies are obsolete, I've been pointing that out for years. But wikis are not actually run by policy, they are run ad hoc by users and administrators and stewards who do what they think will benefit the project. You got to see how it actually worked. If you want to work on policy, I suggest you come back when you have a few years of experience cross-wiki. There is lots of work to do, where, if you are careful, you will not get into trouble, and if you watch activity, you will learn. This was guaranteed to get you blocked, if the rest hadn't been enough. What were you thinking? I'll tell you: you were thinking only about yourself and what you wanted, not about others and the community. That will get you into trouble everywhere in life, not just on wikis. And we don't need to know your computer and OS. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It was even worse than I'd seen.
  • 14:46, 1 August 2017 blocked on Wikipedia for sock puppetry
  • Unblock request 02:56, 2 August 2017 totally clueless. Guaranteed failure. The independent decline links to frivolous unblock requests for two IPs and a sock.
  • 03:14, 2 August 2017
  • UTRS appeal #18891 was submitted on Aug 02, 2017 05:57:59
  • UTRS appeal #18901 was submitted on Aug 02, 2017 22:49:26
  • UTRS appeal #18906 was submitted on Aug 03, 2017 14:58:22.
  • There was an email to ArbComm. Talk Page Access was restored for the IP range. Block maintained. (Congratulations for thinking about others. That's the one bright light here.)
  • 13:20, 2 August 2017 Global lock request filed.
  • 15:10 - 15:26, 2 August 2017) spammed 23 steward pages (yes, that is called "spam.")
  • 15:26 blocked for 36 hours. Account locked 19:27, 2 August 2017
Basically, the most urgent matter to attend to was the global lock request, and spamming the stewards would not change what was probably an open and shut case. The only hope at that point would have been to respond on the steward request page, admitting and accepting a lock for all socks and requesting that lock on the main account be held off, as you would not sock any more, period. (And if they decided to lock, ask for a time to wait before appealing. Maybe three or six months. No socking for that time, you would then be set up for easy unlock. They will *not* monitor you.)
More deeply, the commitment that would save you, big time, would be to notice when you are upset, when you think there is an emergency, and get that there is no emergency on a wiki, it can wait. Take some time, breathe. Often, when we were children, we learned that if we made a huge fuss, our parents would give us what we wanted. Sometimes that works, people might give you what you want just to shut you up. But more often, as adults, it backfires. It definitely backfires dealing with WMF functionaries. In this case, you got lucky. If, however, you do not address the underlying causes (not just the specific list of mistakes you made), the prognosis is poor. If you do, congratulations, you will have a better future in front of you. in many ways. All the best, again. --Abd (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes to WMF Non-discrimination policy

Regarding this edit to WMF's Non-discrimination policy, made in March this year, changing "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of ..." to "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of..." (changes emboldened for clarity); does this mean that WMF now allows discrimination against volunteers and readers?

Where was this announced, or discussed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome some clarification too. --Nemo 15:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I helped work on this policy update and can offer some clarification. The policy was not being applied to users even before the change, and the interpretation had been consistent that it applied only to Wikimedia Foundation staff. When we were going through to update the categories to bring it in line with modern standards, we felt that it should be clarified as a staff-focused policy (again, the way it already had been even before the change) so we updated the wording per the edit you link. Note that this doesn't mean that suddenly wikis are allowed to unfairly discriminate against people. Doing so might constitute a violation of the Terms of Use (such as harassing or abusing others, or violating their privacy in some cases), and there are a number of community policies on different wikis that likely prohibit discriminatory behavior in different contexts. We just clarified that this specific policy is one focused on Foundation staff. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"modern standards" which standards would these be? "doesn't mean that suddenly wikis are allowed to unfairly discriminate ..." Wikis are inanimate. "community policies" - such policies do not apply to staff, in their off-wiki roles. Frankly, I'm less than reassured by your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Category:Cooler heads, it seems on the surface there is no way to interpret this other than a possible error. I suspect the Board of Trustees was not consulted on this rather small change to a WMF-wide policy, because this edit really does exactly what the template at the top of the page says it must not: It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project, emphasis added. Although this NDP may not appear (to staff) to be in use within the community, it has in fact been cited multiple times in disputes, particularly certain cases where community administrators were acting in concert in opposition to this policy. This policy, like many WMF policies, are used as authority by community internal governance structures, undergirding local implementations and guiding community actions. It is part of our Soft Security - a guide post in that context.

    Saying there is one set of policies for staff and a different set for the community will likely have negative effects. - Amgine/meta wikt 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this here, but I was previously aware of some confusion. Please see the English Wikipedia version of this at [12] which retains the old wording (but seems to interpret it away). BTW, this was created by a then-Arb on EnWiki @Roger Davies:. See my reaction (similar to @Pigsonthewing:) at [13]. The posting there was apparently prompted by this discussion which goes back to the bad old days when it was possible to openly bait women editors with foul language, and a woman proposed a place where only women editors could edit. I've got mixed feelings all around, but

  • It looks like we'll have to modify the EnWiki version somehow, and
  • The WMF board should do something to encourage all projects to come up with an anti-discrimination policy that applies to users.

@Slaporte (WMF), Jrogers (WMF), and EHershenov (WMF):

Smallbones (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): Are you willing to revert your edit? If not, what is the path for appealing this within WMF? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): hello ??? Are you going to discuss any of this ? I mean the policy is even categorised under "wikimedia wiki policies", if you no longer consider it to be so (which is my current reading), then you should recategorise it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies all that I haven't gotten back to this. That is a good catch on the sidebar category, we had missed that and should move it to the board and staff section, so we'll update that accordingly. With regard to the request to change or revert the edit, I'm not able to help with that. This change was reviewed by several WMF staff including the ED and was approved by the board, so although I was asked to make the update, I can't undo it or change it without their permission. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Adjusted in this edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
... prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of race,... so discrimination of "normal" editors is allowed? Klaas `Z4␟` V:  20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@KlaasZ4usV: we all wikt:discriminate in actions and thoughts, it is the context and basis of the discrimination that is important. It is legal to discriminate on the basis of work experience and knowledge when you hire someone, but not on the basis of gender, sexuality, ...

so if you think that there are other areas in which discrimination should not occur, then it would be worthwhile to enter a conversation to expand the criteria.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)