Hi, Nathan. I appreciate your recommendations; they are both very good. :)
In a situation that comes through the usual processes, the investigative team would usually direct the person contacting them to a policy page on the local project or to a specific functionary group. So, Oversight, for instance, in case of leaked personal data. In this case, I suspect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment would have suited the situation better. Unfortunately, we didn’t anticipate redirecting somebody with a dispute of this sort via the emergency@ channel. As I mentioned above, staff are directed not to handle other matters through that channel. When off-topic requests (for the channel) come in, people are usually asked to mail ca@ and to expect a response within two business days. In this case, given the level of distress, the emergency responder wanted to offer something more rapid without being herself deeply familiar with the English Wikipedia approaches. I’m very supportive of her desire to help, and we are going to make sure that emergency@ responders have better support in where to direct these issues while still maintaining our strict protocol of not using that channel to handle any issues other than threats of physical harm. Nobody wants to try to help somebody only to increase their distress. :( I also agree that she should have mentioned ca@ in the email. She actually included that channel in her response as a cc, but because of the personally tailored answer seems to have inadvertently omitted mentioning the fact of the cc. I do want to note that the individual in this case had already been asked to correspond with ca@ if there were issues that didn’t merit consideration for escalation to law enforcement. I certainly understand that he may have overlooked that in his distress, and it should have been repeated. I myself am very capable of overlooking things even when NOT distressed, and we should make the processes we DO have as smooth and painless as possible for people. We are learning from this. We’ll make the process better. Best regards, Maggie On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:54 PM Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Maggie, > > First, thank you for the update and for the additional background > information. How does T&S determine *which* local processes to refer users > to? In the particular case here, it might have been better if the user had > been offered a mix of private or public methods to address the problem. It > seems as though the only advice given was to a noticeboard, but as others > have noted communicating privately with an administrator or with the > functionaries list or other private means may have been more effective. > That could be true for future inquiries as well, so perhaps reviewing what > advice regarding local processes is offered would be a good idea. > > The emergency@ response also did not offer or suggest sending the inquiry > to ca@, which might have been helpful. > > ~Nathan > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Maggie Dennis <mden...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > Hello, all. > > > > Yesterday some questions were raised in this channel about Trust & > Safety’s > > response to an issue of harassment reported via our emergency email > > address. The director of that team reports to me, as I am the Vice > > President of Community Resilience & Sustainability, so I wanted to speak > to > > that, to clarify our approaches in the hopes of avoiding unnecessary > > confusion and distress to individuals in the future. I also wanted to > give > > you an update on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) drafting committee. > > :) > > > > Apologies in advance for the length of this! > > > > Let’s start with the UCoC.[1] As a brief recap, there is a drafting > > committee working on a global policy that will set basic minimum > standards > > for conduct in the Wikimedia movement. The committee is making good > > progress, but time challenges in part around the current global health > > crisis has led them to ask for two more weeks to prepare this draft for > the > > month-long community review period on Meta. This means we will be asking > > for community comment from September 7 to October 6, which will push the > > delivery of the policy to the Board from September 30 to October 13. The > > full timeline is on the main Meta page. > > > > In terms of the Foundation’s Trust & Safety team and how and when to > reach > > out to them, Trust & Safety’s team handles several key workflows with > > different addresses according to urgency.[2] > > > > Our emergency@ channel is set up to deal with threats of physical harm - > > ranging from terrorism to suicide - which the team triages and escalates > as > > appropriate to law enforcement and other emergency services for them to > > handle. (“As appropriate” is under an escalation protocol defined for the > > Foundation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who helped build this > > multinational crisis line.) The team’s sole role here is to act as a > > switchboard putting these threats into the hands of professionals trained > > to handle them, around the world. This channel is staffed 24 hours a > day, 7 > > days a week, and the team has strong direction not to handle other > matters > > through this channel. In order for it to function effectively, it deals > > with nothing else. (See the Meta page on this process - [3].) Other > > matters, including behavioral investigation requests, should be sent to > > Trust & Safety via the email address c...@wikimedia.org. > > > > I’d like to acknowledge that it is not unusual for the Trust & Safety > team > > to encounter problems caused by lack of clarity as to what constitutes > > harassment and what to do about it when it is encountered. There are > > differences in how different projects define and handle issues, including > > how many resources they have to dedicate to investigating and responding > to > > these and where and when concerns should be raised. This is one of the > > reasons that the Movement Strategy working groups recommended the > Universal > > Code of Conduct to begin with, with clear escalation mechanisms. We are > > working with communities on this, with an expectation that over the next > > few months international conversations will help everyone better > understand > > what behavior is acceptable in the movement and better navigate and > choose > > where to report their concerns to find effective help. > > > > How the Foundation will support communities in these governance issues is > > important, with an essential balance of giving targets of harassment the > > care they need while also respecting that communities are better > positioned > > to self-govern. Our role is and should remain to assist with issues that > > are beyond the capacity of communities to handle. Our goal should be to > > empower communities to handle as much as they can. > > > > The Trust & Safety team has a small division of people who review > > behavioral investigation requests they receive. Their first task is to > > assess whether the issue is for some reason not solvable through > community > > self-governance mechanisms. This is most often because the situation > > crosses a threshold of legal responsibility, but sometimes because it > falls > > into an area where community self-governance processes are lacking: > > sometimes this is cross-wiki abuse; other times this is because the > > projects where the issues are happening lack robust self-governance; > > sometimes this is because the situations reported may involve the > > individuals usually tasked with self-governance. If they determine a case > > does not require Foundation involvement but is instead better suited for > > self-governance, they will direct the individual to local processes. We > > have committed not to intervene in cases that community self-governance > can > > reasonably handle. Sometimes even when a case does rise to the level of > > Foundation involvement, they will advise the person who reached out of > > appropriate community self-governance processes as a more rapid solution > > while they complete their investigation, including the essential legal > > review, before they are able to take sanctions. This is important because > > those investigations and legal reviews are generally not quick. It’s not > > uncommon for the Foundation to issue sanctions against a person who has > > been locally blocked, and we regard this as a healthy functioning of the > > system, at least until the Universal Code of Conduct can be created to > > potentially streamline the process. > > > > I would like to encourage people to take part in the Universal Code of > > Conduct conversations as they happen. The distress conflict causes people > > in our movement is real. Helping to find the best way to minimize this > > distress and to guide conflict in healthy directions will serve us all. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Maggie > > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct > > > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety > > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Threats_of_harm > > > > -- > > Maggie Dennis > > Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Maggie Dennis Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
