Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[DerHexer via Wikimedia-l]

That's a tricky topic, especially when local dispute resolution bodies
(which should in most cases be approached first, I agree here) cannot solve
the dispute or when multiple projects are involved. At the moment, there is
in fact a lack of such body and of course it should be transparent,
composed of multi-diverse community members who are trained and supported
by professional mediation, etc. as pointed out. Currently, stewards like me
are quite often approached with such topics but this user group is more
focused on technical stuff like userrights. A former steward fellow and I
discussed this topic at the Safety Space at Wikimania. Due to the nature of
the space, the discussion have not been documented but you can find the
presentation with backgrounds of the situation and open questions on Commons
.
Maybe it can give some ideas how to proceed with this.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer


Am So., 24. Mai 2020 um 06:19 Uhr schrieb Aron Demian <
aronmanni...@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 04:25, AntiCompositeNumber <
> anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it be fair to say that:
> >  - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a
> > fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with
> > significant community oversight and input
> > - Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable
> > through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community
> > oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved
> > community members
> > - To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement
> > actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as
> > possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy
> > or safety)
> >
> > AntiComposite
> >
>
> Yes! These are fundamental requirements that need to be met by the process
> that will be implemented in the second phase (Aug - end of 2020).
> It seems there will be an opportunity to incorporate these requirements:
>
> The second phase, outlining clear enforcement pathways, and
> > *refined with** broad input from the Wikimedia communities*, will be
> > presented to the Board
> > for ratification by the end of 2020;
>
>
> I'd add a few more points:
> - To handle workload and different languages, local boards should be
> selected as the first step of the process, with possible escalation to a
> global board if necessary (eg. for conflict-of-interest reason).
> - To minimize bias the boards should consist of people from different
> areas. As long as the local DR processes remain operational (ANI and the
> likes), there should be a clear separation of powers: CoC board members
> should not be involved with local DR to avoid concentration of power. Being
> an admin should not be a requirement, in fact adminship and dispute
> resolution should be separate roles, as the latter requires specific
> training or experience, which is not part of the requirements to be admin.
> - There should be at least 2 independent global boards so one can review
> the other's decisions and handle appeals. Cases should be evaluated by the
> board that has more members unrelated to the involved parties.
> - Functionaries and board members should be regularly reviewed and terms
> limited to a few years.
>
> About the DR process:
> - Most of our communication is publicly visible on-wiki, therefore the
> cases should be resolved in public. Transparency is crucial for community
> review and a great learning opportunity about dispute resolution.
> - Privately handled cases should only happen when all parties agree to
> it, so one party can't use "privacy" as a means to avoid the burden of
> proof. Non-public evidence should only be taken into account if there is a
> very strong justification, proportional to the sanction that comes from it.
> - Reports, however, should be created privately and published only when the
> case opens. Before the case opens the reporter might seek advice and help
> to create the report from people they trust. I've outlined a process draft
> for this in the context of the User Reporting System
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_system_consultation_2019#Factual,_evidence_based_reporting_tool_-_draft,_proposal
> >
> .
> - Reports should be treated with respect, as the personal experience of a
> person. Nobody should be sanctioned for what a report contains, whether the
> boards, or the community finds that true or false, as that would be a
> deterrent to reporting influential users, who made a mistake or lost their
> way.
> - The focus should be on dispute *resolution. *Disputes and the resulting
> reports often start with disagreements, not bad intent towards each other.
> Mediation is an effective approach to finding a mutually agreeable
> resolution in these situations. Such 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[Thyge]

The board resolution aims at "addressing harassment and incivility on
Wikimedia projects".

I don't see that this covers "disputes", i.e disputes over content.  We
can, of course, disagree with someone totally over a topic, as long as we
discuss our differences in a civil and respectful way - and consider our
opponent's point-of-view and arguments seriously.

Regards,
Thyge - Sir48



Virusfri.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Den man. 25. maj 2020 kl. 14.45 skrev DerHexer via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:

> That's a tricky topic, especially when local dispute resolution bodies
> (which should in most cases be approached first, I agree here) cannot solve
> the dispute or when multiple projects are involved. At the moment, there is
> in fact a lack of such body and of course it should be transparent,
> composed of multi-diverse community members who are trained and supported
> by professional mediation, etc. as pointed out. Currently, stewards like me
> are quite often approached with such topics but this user group is more
> focused on technical stuff like userrights. A former steward fellow and I
> discussed this topic at the Safety Space at Wikimania. Due to the nature of
> the space, the discussion have not been documented but you can find the
> presentation with backgrounds of the situation and open questions on
> Commons
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2019_%E2%80%93_Do_we_need_a_global_dispute_resolution_committee%3F.pdf
> >.
> Maybe it can give some ideas how to proceed with this.
>
> Best,
> Martin/DerHexer
>
>
> Am So., 24. Mai 2020 um 06:19 Uhr schrieb Aron Demian <
> aronmanni...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 04:25, AntiCompositeNumber <
> > anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Would it be fair to say that:
> > >  - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a
> > > fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with
> > > significant community oversight and input
> > > - Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable
> > > through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community
> > > oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved
> > > community members
> > > - To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement
> > > actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as
> > > possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy
> > > or safety)
> > >
> > > AntiComposite
> > >
> >
> > Yes! These are fundamental requirements that need to be met by the
> process
> > that will be implemented in the second phase (Aug - end of 2020).
> > It seems there will be an opportunity to incorporate these requirements:
> >
> > The second phase, outlining clear enforcement pathways, and
> > > *refined with** broad input from the Wikimedia communities*, will be
> > > presented to the Board
> > > for ratification by the end of 2020;
> >
> >
> > I'd add a few more points:
> > - To handle workload and different languages, local boards should be
> > selected as the first step of the process, with possible escalation to a
> > global board if necessary (eg. for conflict-of-interest reason).
> > - To minimize bias the boards should consist of people from different
> > areas. As long as the local DR processes remain operational (ANI and the
> > likes), there should be a clear separation of powers: CoC board members
> > should not be involved with local DR to avoid concentration of power.
> Being
> > an admin should not be a requirement, in fact adminship and dispute
> > resolution should be separate roles, as the latter requires specific
> > training or experience, which is not part of the requirements to be
> admin.
> > - There should be at least 2 independent global boards so one can review
> > the other's decisions and handle appeals. Cases should be evaluated by
> the
> > board that has more members unrelated to the involved parties.
> > - Functionaries and board members should be regularly reviewed and terms
> > limited to a few years.
> >
> > About the DR process:
> > - Most of our communication is publicly visible on-wiki, therefore the
> > cases should be resolved in public. Transparency is crucial for community
> > review and a great learning opportunity about dispute resolution.
> > - Privately handled cases should only happen when all parties agree to
> > it, so one party can't use "privacy" as a means to avoid the burden of
> > proof. Non-public evidence should only be taken into account if there is
> a
> > very strong justification, proportional to the sanction that comes from
> it.
> > - Reports, however, should be created privately and published only when
> the
> > case opens. Before the case 

[Wikimedia-l] Language Showcase, May 2020

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hello,

This is an announcement about a new installment of the Language Showcase, a
series of presentations about various aspects of language diversity and its
connection to Wikimedia Projects.

This new installment will deal with the latest design research about the
upcoming section translation feature for Content Translation.

This session is going to be broadcast over Zoom, and a recording will be
published for later viewing. You can also participate in the conversation
on IRC or with us on the Zoom meeting.

Please read below for the event details, including local time, joining
links and do let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you!

Amir

== Details ==

# Event: Language Showcase #5

# When: May 27, 2020 (Wednesday) at 13:00 UTC (check local time
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20200527T1300 )

# Where:

Join Zoom Meeting
https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/9708103

Meeting ID: 970 8103 

IRC - #wikimedia-office (on Freenode)

# Agenda:

The latest design research about the upcoming section translation feature
for Content Translation.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[Samuel Klein]

> A former steward fellow and I
> discussed this topic at the Safety Space at Wikimania. Due to the nature of
> the space, the discussion have not been documented but you can find the
> presentation with backgrounds of the situation and open questions on
> Commons
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2019_%E2%80%93_Do_we_need_a_global_dispute_resolution_committee%3F.pdf
> >.
> Maybe it can give some ideas how to proceed with this.
>

Yes -- I was just thinking of your discussions of this while reading the
thread. I hope these steward reflections are considered as people move
forward.

The case of disputes that embroil an entire community and their admins
should (also) specifically be addressed.
S
___
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,