Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Anti-harassment/UserBlind mode: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Support proposal: Neutrality extends to not prejudicing users against each other. |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
* {{oppose}} We need transparency when discussing user conduct, which can serious implications for the person being discussed. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk]]</sup></small> 04:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
* {{oppose}} We need transparency when discussing user conduct, which can serious implications for the person being discussed. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk]]</sup></small> 04:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
* {{support}} Neutrality extends to not prejudicing users against each other. [[User:ISNorden|Ingeborg S. Nordén]] ([[User talk:ISNorden|talk]]) 06:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
* {{support}} Neutrality extends to not prejudicing users against each other. [[User:ISNorden|Ingeborg S. Nordén]] ([[User talk:ISNorden|talk]]) 06:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
* {{oppose}} If someone wants to discuss anonymously just logout and use your IP-address [[User_talk:Klaas van Buiten|Klaas]] `Z4␟` [[User:Klaas van Buiten|V]]: 13:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:40, 12 December 2020
UserBlind mode
- Problem: Certain discussions, particularly those dealing with individual user conduct issues, are difficult to participate in in an unbiased manner and without generating side-effects like occasional animosity between editors. The fact that users know that particular other users have passed negative judgement on them can make it difficult for those users to work together in the future. The concern over this can also cause people to avoid dealing with conduct issues entirely.
- Who would benefit: All contributors, but more directly those dealing with reports of conduct issues (including Arbitration Committees and users active in fora like enwiki's ANI, AE, etc). Also contributors to wikis with "unblockable" users which the community has difficulty fairly judging.
- Proposed solution: A "UserBlind" mode, in which all visible usernames would replaced by tokens, eg "[USER #23]", effectively anonymizing other users while the mode is enabled. This would allow fair assessments of conduct reports in a impersonal manner. Not only would the person passing judgement on the actions not know whose actions they are (thus evading bias), the person whose actions are being judged would not have reason to think that the commenting user has anything against them in particular, thus avoiding inter-user tension.
- More comments: Links: Proof of concept, VPM post
- Phabricator tickets:
- Proposer: Yair rand (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- @Yair rand: - how would individuals handle verifying evidence and doing further investigation with this process? Neither AN or ArbCom can function like judges where evidence is just provided - it needs to be cross-checked (in ANI, the closer doesn't do investigation, but everyone else participating would follow it down the rabbit hole). Additionally, when I'm reviewing people for certain roles, such as at RfA, then I need to be able to review their ANI participation to know the quality of their judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Voting
- Support ValeJappo【〒】 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It is often important to know who is commenting on an user conduct dispute - there are users who either can be trusted in their comments and those which can't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm sorry, I think you (and maybe some others here) may have misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is for a mode that users could enable, so they could look at a page without seeing the names behind the actions/comments, when this would be helpful. In situations where it would be counterproductive, it could just be not used. --Yair rand (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support _ I use this already as script and it is truely a benefit for my work. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have positively contributed in the past, only to see my contributions removed by previous editors of the page I was seeking to improve. They acted as if they "owned" the page and dismissed my arguments. I gave up because I'm too busy with other things in my life than editing Wikipedia. Too bad, as I am an expert in the area I was trying to improve. Cerniagigante (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this would be a useful tool. It's likely to lead to further distrust among the community. Plus when a strong conflict emerges, many people are aware of who is defending which position. Everyone will be guessing who is under user1 and so forth. --Braveheidi (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Suitable as a user script, you can choose, but don't promote it.--YFdyh000 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Editor760 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support UncleMartin (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 02:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support AnotherOnymous (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Braveheidi and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Firestar464 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yair rand's reply to Jo-Jo Eumerus is key to me, this could be a optional valuable tool. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think I know when to use that feature. Users will see the comments before they use the feature. To prevent that, you have to enable the feature by default. But it is dangerous to show all comments anonymously by default. Because malicious users may also comment. --Tmv (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose One of the main values of Wikipedia is its transparency, with the trade-offs that this might imply. Replacing users by tokens distort the traceability of edits and other problems or conducts (e.g. vandalisms, corporate edits, etc.). For anonymity the basic option of creating a nickname already exists. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 10:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't need this. There are better things to do and Wikipedia is an open project. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, they don't have to. --Ján Kepler (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose --Олександр Кравчук (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The thing is that part of this is about connecting with people, and if people don't have any idea at all who's who, they can't make the connections between people which make Wikimedia work in the first place. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 20:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose there's already enough going on with users hiding behind IPs etc. therefore no tool to make it even easier close to default to avoid transparency--KlauRau (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support 4thfile4thrank (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Xavi Dengra I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Lvova (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose While I understand the sentiment behind this, it would only be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances. Otherwise, it's better to have people posting under their own usernames, because patterns emerge from user behavior. Plus, obfuscated usernames will become a problem when UserX shows up in a discussion as User#22, but everyone can tell it's them due to their argument and/or writing style. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I imagine that it is not by transforming the account name as anonymous that it will resolve the judgment of accounts with serious cases of conduct. I believe that whoever is part of the Arbitration Committee, of the members of the administration, should be responsible for carrying out all evaluations based on the project's policies and all of them were elected for this. Therefore, hiding the name for anonymity would only bring more problems, especially for those being accused, not even being able to find out if the user is really part of the team of evaluators. WikiFer msg 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support, particularization, animosity, personal attacks, are bad counselors and not based in justice. BoldLuis (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose valepert (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support ArnabSaha (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems to be in contradiction to transparency and openness. --Gereon K. (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose let’s not give bullies another cloak to hide behind. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We need transparency when discussing user conduct, which can serious implications for the person being discussed. SarahSV talk 04:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Neutrality extends to not prejudicing users against each other. Ingeborg S. Nordén (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose If someone wants to discuss anonymously just logout and use your IP-address Klaas `Z4␟` V: 13:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)