View source for Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Enforcement/Malay community

== Feedback == <!--T:9-->
In general, it is hard to measure the general sentiment from the Malay community from the lack of active and specific participation, but the survey responses and two major responses provided us with some meaningful clues.

<!--T:10-->
Important points from the surveys:
* 57.1% are not aware and/or familiar with any form of Wikimedia behavioral policy or have little understanding of it;
* 42.8% indicated that they may or had been harassed on wiki;
* 28.6% of editors indicated they may or had experienced some kind of abuse of power from functionaries (sysops, bureaucrats, senior community members etc);
* 50% of editors had experienced a form of vandalism, either perpetrated by registered users or IP addresses;
* 16.7% has indicated that at some point, they considered taking a break from editing or leaving the project altogether due to harassment, abuse of power, and/or vandalism that they received/experienced;
* 57.1% are aware of the UCoC, but 84.6% was not sure/neutral on whether the current mswiki behavioral policy (or lack thereof) is aligned with UCoC, and 57.1% are neutral on whether Malay community is open to revise and/or complement the current set of behavioral policy with the terms of UCoC;
* 71.4% are in favour of adopting the UCoC as a basic standard minimum to adopt a behavioral policy for the Malay community, as opposed to accepting it as what it is.

=== Enforcement body === <!--T:22-->

<!--T:11-->
* The top three bodies that are favoured to enforce UCoC were- Sysops (selected by 92.9%), a special body elected by local community members (71.4%), and an Arbitration Committee (50%); 
* 78.6% are neutral on whether members of UCoC enforcement body should receive a form of financial compensation/remuneration for their service; 
* 50% are neutral on whether the Wikimedia Foundation and its Affiliates are able to handle cases of UCoC violations; 
* 78.6% are in favour of a special mechanism to handle functionaries (sysops, bureaucrats, etc) that violated UCoC; 
* 92.9% are in favour of a standard of procedure to streamline the rights and obligations of those are involved throughout a UCoC violation case (complaining party, complainant, and its arbitrators); 
* 85.7% are in favour of establishing an appellate body that could hear appeals for a UCoC violation case from the local community on global level; 
* 57.1% are neutral and 42.9% are in favour of the said global body to take over the local community’s ability to enforce UCoC, in case, the community could not afford to maintain an enforcement system, has a bad reputation on matters of behavioral enforcement, and/or refuse to cooperate with the global UCoC enforcement ecosystem. 
* 78.6% are in favour of periodic review of UCoC text; 
* The top three bodies that are favoured to periodically review the UCoC text are the local communities (selected by 85.7%), a special body elected by local community members (78.6%), and a special body elected by the global community members (64.3%). 

=== Enforcement pathway and escalation channels === <!--T:23-->

<!--T:12-->
* 71.4% indicated that they are aware of steps to report harassment, abuse of power, and/or vandalism on wiki, but only 23.1% had done so before;
* 64.3% are in favour of handling harassment, abuse of power, and/or vandalism on a case-per-case basis, and 28.6% support the idea of a transparent enforcement mechanism that could be seen and monitored by all contributors;
* Privacy and ease of access are two primary ideals that should be featured in a reporting system, with 71.4% supporting it.

=== Support for targets for harassment === <!--T:24--> 

<!--T:13-->
In an ESEAP meeting, a mswiki editor stated that the forms of supporting harassment targets are to “get rid of those toxic Wikipedia admins who are so cruel (literally) to any newbie or general editors”, maintaining that these functionaries are contributing to the situation where “newbies will be heavily discouraged in joining wikimedia movement” and recognized that “this had happened for so many times already”.

=== Other relevant responses === <!--T:25-->

<!--T:14-->
At the RfC page, a sysop proposed that the biggest behaviour-related issue is the vandalism from IP addresses, and a full ban for them from creating articles would be a logical solution to this, despite recognizing that it would severely hamper the project’s (already stagnating) growth rate. They also noted that the community’s consensus to ban IP addresses from creating articles in 2020 was summarily rejected by the developers at Phabricator, and hoped for the WMF to be more sensitive to locally-achieved consensus.