Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Chris McKenna]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, Trillium Corsage wrote:


30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" :


The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
drive them away.


That was the story of Lightbreather, a English Wiipedia editor that self-identified as female. She ran afoul of some other editor that (IIRC, I'm confident this is basically correct) that labeled some images on a porn site as being her (they were labeled "Lightbreather"). The outcome (GET THIS!) was that she (Lightbreather!) was formally banned by Arbcom for complaining about it at Wikipedia. They said she was "outing" the culprit by calling attention to his off-wiki activities. 


Horrendous I know and tends to shows that Arbcom and the rest of Enwiki 
administrative structure genuinely have a problem with women, which they are 
often alleged to (i.e. in Gamergate and all that).

Trillium Corsage


Unfortunately you memory is not quite correct regarding Lightbreather.
She was not banned for complaining about being harassed, she was banned 
for repeated and persistent breaches of behavioural policies on Wikipedia, 
repeated breaches of topic bans related to gun control, ownership of 
articles, revert and edit warring, casting aspersions, causing disruption 
to make a point and, partictularly, outing attempting to out another 
editor (on and off Wikipedia) - despite being explicitly warned (more 
than once) that she must not do that.


The full decision can be read at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Final_decision


She was, very unfortunately and completely unacceptably, harassed 
off-wiki by two individuals during the case (so far as I am aware, 
independently). One of those individuals was banned as soon as we 
(arbcom) were made aware of the harassment as there was a clear and direct 
link to a Wikipedia user.


There was not a direct link between the other harasser and any Wikipedia 
user, and so ArbCom, the English Wikipedia functionaries team and the 
Foundation spent a lot of time and effort investigating who the harasser 
was. This investigation produced an indirect link (with iirc at least 
four intermediate steps) to a specific Wikipedia editor, but there was no 
consensus that the link was strong enough to take action - although there 
was universal agreement that the perpertrator should be banned if 
identified.


Basically there were three possibilities - 1. the Wikipedia editor and the 
harasser were the same person. 2. the Wikipedia editor was being framed. 
3. the harassment was linked to the Wikipedia editor entirely 
coincidentally. Only in the case of 1 would action against the Wikipedia 
editor be justified, but the evidence was not strong enough to be sure 
this was the case. However bad the harassment is, it is important to 
remember that alleged perpretrators are still innocent until proven 
otherwise.


After the case (1-2 months later I think) more evidence was found that 
bypassed the weakest link in the previous chain. After more investigation 
it was found that this link, while still indirect, was sufficient to 
connect the harassment to the Wikipedia editor and they were swiftly 
banned.


Far from punishing Lightbreather for complaining about being harassed, 
Arbcom, Functionaries and the Foundation all offered her as much support 
as they were able to deal with the effects of the harassment, to identify 
her harasser and to take what real-world action she could against that 
person. Unfortunately, as the law in most jurisdictions is years or even 
decades behind the times when it comes to harassment, there is all too 
often very little that can be done through legal channels. In 
Lightbreather's case, I believe that Lightbreather, her harasser, the WMF 
and the external website on which she was harassed are all based in 
different jurisdictions which only makes things even more complicated.


It thus really does not suprise me that the survey respondents report the 
effectiveness of legal action so poorly.


Chris



Chris McKenna

cmcke...@sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna


The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Tim Landscheidt]

Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
> individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
> pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints
> of this happening to both men and women.

> […]

That was not asked and reported by the Harassment Survey,
though.  Question #6 as per
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015/Questions
was:

| How many times have you experienced incidents like the ones
| described below while working on any of the Wikimedia
| projects?

| […]

| - Sexually explicit or sexualised photos of me have been
|   published without my consent

| […]

Even subsuming the second alternative as "revenge porn" is
very problematic as in the public perception and that of the
courts it is a breach of the implicit confidentiality under
which (real) images were originally produced.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Andy Mabbett]

"On 30 January 2016 at 14:20, Pierre-Selim  wrote:

> We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the
> result. The denial is hindering improvements.

It certainly wasn't my intention to deny that this occurs, nor it's
potentially devastating impact on victims - indeed, I've witnessed it
happening to friends. Nor have I seen others denying it, in this
discussion.

I was referring to the claimed prevalence ("almost one third of the
respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn"); which is
not a credible either as a reflection of the wider community, or in
the context of this survey, in which 38% reported experiencing
harassment of any type; and which suggests a flawed sampling or
measuring process.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Vituzzu]

Il 30/01/2016 18:12, Jane Darnell ha scritto:

I think you meant to link this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=revision=686068089=686006551


Nope, I exactly meant the link I posted :D

Mine wasn't a criticism of Bgwhite but I wanted to point out he dealt 
with it as that was a good-faith edit.
As said I don't want to criticise him but this is, imvho, a sign of an 
overall lack of attention by us to potential harassment/libel/outing 
situations.


Vito

(meanwhile BDA, the troll above, is being "helped" by a good-faith user 
to reinstate his contents, but that's a different matter)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Vituzzu]

A similar situation happened to me: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=685988175=685926527 
or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted 
because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request 
file delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags.


I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but 
I feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use 
socialnetworks).


Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of 
"tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed 
at harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction, 
regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator.


Vito

Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:

I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
order to link it here):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard=revision=427057319=426139028

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Haitham Shammaa]

Hi Tobias,

In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high,
the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of
respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment
(~1200).

e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge porn", this brings the
percentage down to 19% out of the general pool of respondents, and in the
range of up to 25% in regard to other categories of harassment.

That said, even with 18-25%, I think this is still rather on the high end
of the spectrum. My alternative theory to explain this is around the used
terminology in the survey. Terms like "revenge porn" or "doxing" are still
comparatively new [1] [2] to casual internet users, not to mention to good
faith Wikipedia contributors, and chances that some of the respondents
confused them for something else (porn, or revenge .. etc) is not an
unlikely scenario.

[1] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=revenge%20porn
[2] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=doxxing

Hope this helps.

*--*
*Haitham Shammaa*
*Senior Strategist*
*Wikimedia Foundation*

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
reality!*

*--*
*Haitham Shammaa*
*Senior Strategist*
*Wikimedia Foundation*

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
reality!*

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Thank you Patrick.
>
> The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
> how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
> respondents cite.
>
> User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
> respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
> of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
>
> Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
>
>
> Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
>
> Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> going on in this community.
>
>
> Tobias
>
> * I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
> users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
> harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Risker]

Some of the things that users might consider "revenge porn" would include
porn that is sent to them via email (either images or text - both of which
I've received), or images/comments posted to their userspace or to other
places where it was intended to come to their attention (e.g., obviously
inappropriate images posted to article talk pages).  Links and "easter
eggs" leading to similar content could also be considered "revenge porn".
Context is often important. In particular, the Wikimedia projects host a
vast quantity of images and media that are appropriate to a limited number
of articles but would be inappropriate or even offensive in other
presentations.

Risker/Anne

On 30 January 2016 at 13:37, Haitham Shammaa  wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
>
> In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high,
> the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of
> respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment
> (~1200).
>
> e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge porn", this brings the
> percentage down to 19% out of the general pool of respondents, and in the
> range of up to 25% in regard to other categories of harassment.
>
> That said, even with 18-25%, I think this is still rather on the high end
> of the spectrum. My alternative theory to explain this is around the used
> terminology in the survey. Terms like "revenge porn" or "doxing" are still
> comparatively new [1] [2] to casual internet users, not to mention to good
> faith Wikipedia contributors, and chances that some of the respondents
> confused them for something else (porn, or revenge .. etc) is not an
> unlikely scenario.
>
> [1] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=revenge%20porn
> [2] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=doxxing
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> *--*
> *Haitham Shammaa*
> *Senior Strategist*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
> reality!*
>
> *--*
> *Haitham Shammaa*
> *Senior Strategist*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
> reality!*
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Tobias  >
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Patrick.
> >
> > The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
> > how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
> > respondents cite.
> >
> > User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
> > respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
> > of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
> >
> > Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> > revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> > or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
> >
> >
> > Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
> >
> > Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> > they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> > going on in this community.
> >
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > * I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
> > users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
> > harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Jane Darnell]

I think you meant to link this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=revision=686068089=686006551

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Vituzzu  wrote:

> A similar situation happened to me:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=685988175=685926527
> or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted
> because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request file
> delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags.
>
> I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but I
> feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use
> socialnetworks).
>
> Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of
> "tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed at
> harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction,
> regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator.
>
> Vito
>
> Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
>
>> I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
>> goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
>> of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
>> order to link it here):
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard=revision=427057319=426139028
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore 
>> wrote:
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Andy Mabbett]

On 30 January 2016 at 13:14, Tobias  wrote:

> Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
>
>
> Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
>
> Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> going on in this community.

Possibly an artefact of a self-selecting audience.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Pierre-Selim]

As an oversighter on Wikimedia Commons, I have witness what has been
described by Maggie and Philippe.

We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the
result. The denial is hindering improvements.
Le 30 janv. 2016 3:03 PM, "Maggie Dennis"  a écrit :

> Hi, Tobias.
>
> The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
> not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
> to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> drive them away.
>
> Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
> that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
> prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen
> in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
> different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
> of one kind or another are sadly really common.
>
> Best,
>
> Maggie
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Maggie,
> >
> > On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> > > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> > > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind
> of
> > > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> > > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
> the
> > > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where
> existing
> > > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> > > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
> > complaints
> > > of this happening to both men and women.
> >
> > thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
> >
> > At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> > themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> > find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> > this very high percentage can be explained.
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Tobias]

Hi Maggie,

On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
> individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
> pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints
> of this happening to both men and women.

thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.

At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
this very high percentage can be explained.

Tobias



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[philippe]

Maggie gave the answer:  "and cases where existing
pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
misattributed as being them."

It isn't dependent on an actual published photo. You can take any old photo, 
slap "Philippe beau fete" on it, and run with it. (You CANbut please don't.)

--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe.beaude...@icloud.com

> On Jan 30, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Tobias  wrote:
> 
> Hi Maggie,
> 
>> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
>> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
>> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
>> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
>> Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
>> individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
>> pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
>> misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints
>> of this happening to both men and women.
> 
> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
> 
> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> this very high percentage can be explained.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Tobias.

In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
(unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints
of this happening to both men and women.

Best,

Maggie



On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Thank you Patrick.
>
> The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
> how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
> respondents cite.
>
> User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
> respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
> of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
>
> Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
>
>
> Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
>
> Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> going on in this community.
>
>
> Tobias
>
> * I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
> users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
> harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Maggie Dennis
Director, Support and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Tobias.

The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
drive them away.

Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen
in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
of one kind or another are sadly really common.

Best,

Maggie



On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
> > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
> > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
> complaints
> > of this happening to both men and women.
>
> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
>
> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> this very high percentage can be explained.
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Maggie Dennis
Director, Support and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Tobias]

Thank you Patrick.

The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
respondents cite.

User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.

Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
or sexualised photos of without one's consent".


Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?

Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
going on in this community.


Tobias

* I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
harassed or maybe harassed (54%).

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Tobias]

Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie!

Tobias

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Todd Allen]

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised either. Can't discuss details for obvious
reasons, but some of the stuff I saw while on the ArbCom would really make
your hair curl. Trolls can get pretty vicious.

Todd

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie!
>
> Tobias
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Sydney Poore]

Hi Tobias,

Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were
reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia
community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed
revenge porn being reported by this many people.

But it is not surprising that the people who experienced the worst
types of harassment, or type that the WMF and wikimedia community is
the least able to address would respond to this survey.

Without further verification, I would not suggest the 65% figure to be
representative of the whole wikimedia community of people who are
harassed. Most people understand that this type of survey sample would
not produce results that are representative of the whole community.

But it does show an example of a type of extreme harassment that
poorly understood by the community. This information can help educate
the WMF and the wikimedia community, and hopefully will help find
better ways of assisting the people being harassed.

Sydney



Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Maggie Dennis  wrote:
> Hi, Tobias.
>
> The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
> not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
> to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> drive them away.
>
> Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
> that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
> prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen
> in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
> different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
> of one kind or another are sadly really common.
>
> Best,
>
> Maggie
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maggie,
>>
>> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
>> > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
>> > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
>> > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
>> > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
>> > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
>> > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
>> > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
>> complaints
>> > of this happening to both men and women.
>>
>> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
>>
>> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
>> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
>> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
>> this very high percentage can be explained.
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Jane Darnell]

I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
order to link it here):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard=revision=427057319=426139028

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
>
> Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were
> reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia
> community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed
> revenge porn being reported by this many people.
>
> But it is not surprising that the people who experienced the worst
> types of harassment, or type that the WMF and wikimedia community is
> the least able to address would respond to this survey.
>
> Without further verification, I would not suggest the 65% figure to be
> representative of the whole wikimedia community of people who are
> harassed. Most people understand that this type of survey sample would
> not produce results that are representative of the whole community.
>
> But it does show an example of a type of extreme harassment that
> poorly understood by the community. This information can help educate
> the WMF and the wikimedia community, and hopefully will help find
> better ways of assisting the people being harassed.
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
> > Hi, Tobias.
> >
> > The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> > pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution
> is
> > not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent
> seems
> > to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> > drive them away.
> >
> > Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
> > that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
> > prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have*
> seen
> > in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
> > different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
> > of one kind or another are sadly really common.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Maggie
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias <
> church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Maggie,
> >>
> >> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> >> > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> >> > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind
> of
> >> > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> >> > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
> the
> >> > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where
> existing
> >> > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> >> > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
> >> complaints
> >> > of this happening to both men and women.
> >>
> >> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
> >>
> >> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> >> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> >> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> >> this very high percentage can be explained.
> >>
> >> Tobias
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Maggie Dennis
> > Director, Support and Safety
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Trillium Corsage]

30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" :

> The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
> not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
> to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> drive them away.

That was the story of Lightbreather, a English Wiipedia editor that 
self-identified as female. She ran afoul of some other editor that (IIRC, I'm 
confident this is basically correct) that labeled some images on a porn site as 
being her (they were labeled "Lightbreather"). The outcome (GET THIS!) was that 
she (Lightbreather!) was formally banned by Arbcom for complaining about it at 
Wikipedia. They said she was "outing" the culprit by calling attention to his 
off-wiki activities.  

Horrendous I know and tends to shows that Arbcom and the rest of Enwiki 
administrative structure genuinely have a problem with women, which they are 
often alleged to (i.e. in Gamergate and all that).

Trillium Corsage

PS: A similar thing happened to editor Kiefer Wolfowitz. After seeking in vain 
to get a email reply about another editor that was exhibiting 
curious-approaching-alarming interactions with boys and young men, he sought, 
in measured terms, comments from the arbs and WMF staff on WIkipedia. Arbcom 
then banned Kiefer, protecting the editor in question with whom at least one of 
the arbs (Wormthatturned) was very friendly. I guess a year or so after that, 
the WMF quietly issued a no-comment "SanFranBan" against the editor Kiefer had 
complained about. Which would indicate Kiefer had a legitimate concern all 
along. 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Lila Tretikov]

Patrick,

Thank you for posting this -- excellent work done by our team and deep
engagement with the community. I encourage everyone to review as we
continue to assess best ways to support healthy and safe Wikimedia
environment for all our contributors and readers.

Lila

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Earley 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is now
> available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1]  This is the first version of
> our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be
> amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data set
> is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions, and
> it has also been linked from the Meta page.
>
> This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding
> of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia
> projects.  We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk
> page on Meta.[2]
>
> We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia
> Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who gave
> feedback on the report.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Community Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> (1) 415 975 1874
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[SarahSV]

Patrick, I also want to thank you and the team for having done this work.
It's extremely interesting and informative, and I think it will be very
helpful moving forward.

Sarah



On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> Thank you for posting this -- excellent work done by our team and deep
> engagement with the community. I encourage everyone to review as we
> continue to assess best ways to support healthy and safe Wikimedia
> environment for all our contributors and readers.
>
> Lila
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Earley 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is
> now
> > available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1]  This is the first version
> of
> > our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be
> > amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data
> set
> > is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions,
> and
> > it has also been linked from the Meta page.
> >
> > This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding
> > of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia
> > projects.  We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk
> > page on Meta.[2]
> >
> > We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia
> > Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who
> gave
> > feedback on the report.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
> >
> > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Earley
> > Community Advocate
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > pear...@wikimedia.org
> > (1) 415 975 1874
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lila Tretikov
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Sam Klein]

Thanks Patrick, a wonderful first step.

For future updates, I hope you can find ways to add data from automated
analysis of interactions, like the League of Legends example Toby shared a
few months back.

Sam

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Earley 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is now
> available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1]  This is the first version of
> our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be
> amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data set
> is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions, and
> it has also been linked from the Meta page.
>
> This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding
> of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia
> projects.  We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk
> page on Meta.[2]
>
> We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia
> Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who gave
> feedback on the report.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Community Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> (1) 415 975 1874
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,