Mailing List Archive

I think the problem is that many Wikimedians are very good at interpreting
policies in to definite rules to suit their point of view, and we struggle
to recognise that the spirit of a policy is more important. When that
happens we write more complexity in to policies rather than keeping it
simple and giving trust that we can reach reasonable outcomes.

Simply stated the policy is;


everyone should have the ability to contribute without fear, intimidation,
or recrimination.

everything that comes next become the tools for which to harness the power
of these policies, there is never going to be a simple set of words to
guide us because once we accept that someone has been harmed we then expect
a response that lays blame with another who intern must be punished. Its
this flip side that make the policy a joke because someone now has their
ability to contribute laced with fear(I can say anything), intimidation(I
cant do that again or I'll be sent packing) and recrimination(I cant do
what I'm here to do and I wont be able to attend any future events). The
safe space policy isnt meant to quell discussion, temper a persons
enthusiasm, nor change their culture, it there solely to enable everyone
to safely and freely contribute.

On 29 July 2018 at 02:52, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how
> to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss
> without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will
> leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in
> this conversation).
>
> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
> ever be a success.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next
>> year Q(^_^Q)
>>
>> Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
>> needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.
>>
>> Deryck
>> (multicultural / "hug me")
>>
>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele <samoye_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is
>>> to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
>>> something.
>>>
>>> From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
>>> ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
>>> kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.
>>>
>>> I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is
>>> indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.
>>>
>>> Sam.
>>>
>>> On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
>>> invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because
>>> of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public
>>> but the reason of removal was kept secret.
>>>
>>> The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it
>>> is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as
>>> a punishment.
>>>
>>> I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal
>>> sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from
>>> different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is
>>> counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other
>>> Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But
>>> from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that
>>> this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T&S and the
>>> people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his
>>> removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process.
>>>
>>> Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing
>>> well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but
>>> couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement
>>> always stay open for the Wikimedia movement.
>>>
>>> --Deryck
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public sphere
>>> more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of specific
>>> situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make people feel
>>> even less safe and make victims of everyone.
>>>
>>> Event Safety and Friendly Spaces is a top priority of any conference
>>> whether big or small as well as one of the issues that can be most
>>> difficult to deal with since it is always a balance of situations, feelings
>>> and people who are frequently acting in good faith. I can confirm that
>>> Trust & Safety was involved here and, like most people who are working on
>>> Friendly Spaces, we never aim to take serious actions if we are able to
>>> avoid it. Most issues are dealt with by local attendees or organizing
>>> volunteers with only short reminders or chats and escalate from there only
>>> as things become more serious or repetitive. The same is true for T&S who
>>> generally doesn't even become involved until it is a larger situation. I
>>> will admit that whenever a local organizer or volunteer is involved the
>>> seriousness is increased some because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as
>>> in a position of influence and power which amplifies any and all issues
>>> that arise. It does not, however, change the focus of trying to take the
>>> least amount of actions possible.
>>>
>>> I will be the first to admit (and did when talking to Romaine yesterday)
>>> that he has done an enormous amount of great work for events and nothing we
>>> did was meant to demean that even if it felt that way to Romaine. Like any
>>> Friendly Spaces actions nothing we did was meant as a punishment (even
>>> though, again, I understand it can feel that way) but was done because we
>>> felt they were the best thing to do for event safety. I can certainly
>>> guarantee that the decision was not taken lightly.
>>>
>>> As many have noted the entire story is not out in the open and,
>>> honestly, won't be. I know that won't make everyone happy but unfortunately
>>> is almost always going to be the case for specific cases. If you want to
>>> speak about process questions and the like, the team (including myself) is
>>> certainly willing to do so. We have a table on the 2nd floor or you can
>>> grab one of us around the conference.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> *James Alexander*
>>> Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations)
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>


--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.

Unfortunately, almost every tool can be used as a weapon.

Cheers,

Peter



From: Wikimania-l [mailto:wikimania-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 29 July 2018 04:45
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)



I think the problem is that many Wikimedians are very good at interpreting policies in to definite rules to suit their point of view, and we struggle to recognise that the spirit of a policy is more important. When that happens we write more complexity in to policies rather than keeping it simple and giving trust that we can reach reasonable outcomes.



Simply stated the policy is;



everyone should have the ability to contribute without fear, intimidation, or recrimination.



everything that comes next become the tools for which to harness the power of these policies, there is never going to be a simple set of words to guide us because once we accept that someone has been harmed we then expect a response that lays blame with another who intern must be punished. Its this flip side that make the policy a joke because someone now has their ability to contribute laced with fear(I can say anything), intimidation(I cant do that again or I'll be sent packing) and recrimination(I cant do what I'm here to do and I wont be able to attend any future events). The safe space policy isnt meant to quell discussion, temper a persons enthusiasm, nor change their culture, it there solely to enable everyone to safely and freely contribute.



On 29 July 2018 at 02:52, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in this conversation).



My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will ever be a success.



Lodewijk







On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:

I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next year Q(^_^Q)



Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.



Deryck

(multicultural / "hug me")



On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele <samoye_@hotmail.com> wrote:

I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or something.



From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.



I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.



Sam.



On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:

This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public but the reason of removal was kept secret.



The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as a punishment.



I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to be.



I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T&S and the people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process.



Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement always stay open for the Wikimedia movement.



--Deryck



On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hey all,



I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public sphere more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of specific situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make people feel even less safe and make victims of everyone.



Event Safety and Friendly Spaces is a top priority of any conference whether big or small as well as one of the issues that can be most difficult to deal with since it is always a balance of situations, feelings and people who are frequently acting in good faith. I can confirm that Trust & Safety was involved here and, like most people who are working on Friendly Spaces, we never aim to take serious actions if we are able to avoid it. Most issues are dealt with by local attendees or organizing volunteers with only short reminders or chats and escalate from there only as things become more serious or repetitive. The same is true for T&S who generally doesn't even become involved until it is a larger situation. I will admit that whenever a local organizer or volunteer is involved the seriousness is increased some because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as in a position of influence and power which amplifies any and all issues that arise. It does not, however, change the focus of trying to take the least amount of actions possible.



I will be the first to admit (and did when talking to Romaine yesterday) that he has done an enormous amount of great work for events and nothing we did was meant to demean that even if it felt that way to Romaine. Like any Friendly Spaces actions nothing we did was meant as a punishment (even though, again, I understand it can feel that way) but was done because we felt they were the best thing to do for event safety. I can certainly guarantee that the decision was not taken lightly.



As many have noted the entire story is not out in the open and, honestly, won't be. I know that won't make everyone happy but unfortunately is almost always going to be the case for specific cases. If you want to speak about process questions and the like, the team (including myself) is certainly willing to do so. We have a table on the 2nd floor or you can grab one of us around the conference.



James



James Alexander

Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations)

Wikimedia Foundation








_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l







--

GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8, UWAP, 2017. Error! Filename not specified. <https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8> Order here.
Image removed by sender.




<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Image removed by sender.

Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com

People: our movement is founded on TRANSPARENCY. Which is - sadly - totally
lacking in the Support and Safety Department.

The Friendly Spaces policy supposedly protects Wikimedians against threat:
examples of such have been provided. Romaine's behaviour quite simply does
not fall under the "threat" category.

I specifically requested in the previous thread that SuSa at least
explained to us what the "threat" was. Numerous Wikimedians from all over
the world who gathered in Cape Town expressed our support both online and
in person to a respected Wikimedian who is dedicated to the movement and
has offered so tremendously to Wikimania (the three I have attended, and
can thus refer to. From my point of view, Romaine is the ONLY volunteer I
can remember running around to make sure everything is running smoothly
since my first day in Mexico City).

I am repeating my plea here: what is it that roughly 90% of the
participants - from the responses I have read and the support I witnessed
in person - that we don't get????

That said, I have personal experience of the shortcomings in the SuSa dept.
No need to go into details here.

In closing, let me just say that I have connected the dots and I have a
pretty good idea of who complained and why this is being kept secret.
Elusive as this last statement may seem, it is no more elusive than James's
initial account of his decision on how to handle the incident (so please
James don't accuse me of speculating: you're the one who's leading me in
that direction. I am overwhelmed by your injustice against Romaine and if
you really are interested in resolving this issue and the bewilderment of
the community once and for all, it's quite easy: just be open about what
really happened)

Romaine you have my unwavering support, regardless of the last word to this
incident. We need nice, warm, fun, hard-working and enthusiastic people
like you in the movement :)

Best,
Mina

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, 21:52 Lodewijk, <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how
> to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss
> without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will
> leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in
> this conversation).
>
> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
> ever be a success.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next
>> year Q(^_^Q)
>>
>> Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
>> needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.
>>
>> Deryck
>> (multicultural / "hug me")
>>
>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele <samoye_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is
>>> to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
>>> something.
>>>
>>> From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
>>> ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
>>> kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.
>>>
>>> I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is
>>> indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.
>>>
>>> Sam.
>>>
>>> On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
>>> invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because
>>> of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public
>>> but the reason of removal was kept secret.
>>>
>>> The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it
>>> is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as
>>> a punishment.
>>>
>>> I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal
>>> sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from
>>> different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is
>>> counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other
>>> Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But
>>> from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that
>>> this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T&S and the
>>> people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his
>>> removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process.
>>>
>>> Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing
>>> well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but
>>> couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement
>>> always stay open for the Wikimedia movement.
>>>
>>> --Deryck
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public sphere
>>> more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of specific
>>> situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make people feel
>>> even less safe and make victims of everyone.
>>>
>>> Event Safety and Friendly Spaces is a top priority of any conference
>>> whether big or small as well as one of the issues that can be most
>>> difficult to deal with since it is always a balance of situations, feelings
>>> and people who are frequently acting in good faith. I can confirm that
>>> Trust & Safety was involved here and, like most people who are working on
>>> Friendly Spaces, we never aim to take serious actions if we are able to
>>> avoid it. Most issues are dealt with by local attendees or organizing
>>> volunteers with only short reminders or chats and escalate from there only
>>> as things become more serious or repetitive. The same is true for T&S who
>>> generally doesn't even become involved until it is a larger situation. I
>>> will admit that whenever a local organizer or volunteer is involved the
>>> seriousness is increased some because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as
>>> in a position of influence and power which amplifies any and all issues
>>> that arise. It does not, however, change the focus of trying to take the
>>> least amount of actions possible.
>>>
>>> I will be the first to admit (and did when talking to Romaine yesterday)
>>> that he has done an enormous amount of great work for events and nothing we
>>> did was meant to demean that even if it felt that way to Romaine. Like any
>>> Friendly Spaces actions nothing we did was meant as a punishment (even
>>> though, again, I understand it can feel that way) but was done because we
>>> felt they were the best thing to do for event safety. I can certainly
>>> guarantee that the decision was not taken lightly.
>>>
>>> As many have noted the entire story is not out in the open and,
>>> honestly, won't be. I know that won't make everyone happy but unfortunately
>>> is almost always going to be the case for specific cases. If you want to
>>> speak about process questions and the like, the team (including myself) is
>>> certainly willing to do so. We have a table on the 2nd floor or you can
>>> grab one of us around the conference.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> *James Alexander*
>>> Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations)
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>

Hi Mina,

I intentionally started a new thread to be able to have a more abstract
discussion about the general policy. I would highly appreciate it if you
won't bring it back to the single case.

Thank you.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:48 AM Mina Theofilatou <saintfevrier@gmail.com>
wrote:

> People: our movement is founded on TRANSPARENCY. Which is - sadly -
> totally lacking in the Support and Safety Department.
>
> The Friendly Spaces policy supposedly protects Wikimedians against threat:
> examples of such have been provided. Romaine's behaviour quite simply does
> not fall under the "threat" category.
>
> I specifically requested in the previous thread that SuSa at least
> explained to us what the "threat" was. Numerous Wikimedians from all over
> the world who gathered in Cape Town expressed our support both online and
> in person to a respected Wikimedian who is dedicated to the movement and
> has offered so tremendously to Wikimania (the three I have attended, and
> can thus refer to. From my point of view, Romaine is the ONLY volunteer I
> can remember running around to make sure everything is running smoothly
> since my first day in Mexico City).
>
> I am repeating my plea here: what is it that roughly 90% of the
> participants - from the responses I have read and the support I witnessed
> in person - that we don't get????
>
> That said, I have personal experience of the shortcomings in the SuSa
> dept. No need to go into details here.
>
> In closing, let me just say that I have connected the dots and I have a
> pretty good idea of who complained and why this is being kept secret.
> Elusive as this last statement may seem, it is no more elusive than James's
> initial account of his decision on how to handle the incident (so please
> James don't accuse me of speculating: you're the one who's leading me in
> that direction. I am overwhelmed by your injustice against Romaine and if
> you really are interested in resolving this issue and the bewilderment of
> the community once and for all, it's quite easy: just be open about what
> really happened)
>
> Romaine you have my unwavering support, regardless of the last word to
> this incident. We need nice, warm, fun, hard-working and enthusiastic
> people like you in the movement :)
>
> Best,
> Mina
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, 21:52 Lodewijk, <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
>> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how
>> to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss
>> without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will
>> leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in
>> this conversation).
>>
>> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
>> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
>> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
>> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
>> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
>> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
>> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
>> ever be a success.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next
>>> year Q(^_^Q)
>>>
>>> Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
>>> needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.
>>>
>>> Deryck
>>> (multicultural / "hug me")
>>>
>>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele <samoye_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future,
>>>> is to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>> From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
>>>> ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
>>>> kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.
>>>>
>>>> I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he
>>>> is indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.
>>>>
>>>> Sam.
>>>>
>>>> On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
>>>> invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because
>>>> of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public
>>>> but the reason of removal was kept secret.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that
>>>> it is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this
>>>> as a punishment.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific,
>>>> personal sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people
>>>> from different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is
>>>> counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other
>>>> Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to
>>>> be.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But
>>>> from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that
>>>> this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T&S and the
>>>> people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his
>>>> removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process.
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing
>>>> well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but
>>>> couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement
>>>> always stay open for the Wikimedia movement.
>>>>
>>>> --Deryck
>>>>
>>>> On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public
>>>> sphere more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of
>>>> specific situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make
>>>> people feel even less safe and make victims of everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Event Safety and Friendly Spaces is a top priority of any conference
>>>> whether big or small as well as one of the issues that can be most
>>>> difficult to deal with since it is always a balance of situations, feelings
>>>> and people who are frequently acting in good faith. I can confirm that
>>>> Trust & Safety was involved here and, like most people who are working on
>>>> Friendly Spaces, we never aim to take serious actions if we are able to
>>>> avoid it. Most issues are dealt with by local attendees or organizing
>>>> volunteers with only short reminders or chats and escalate from there only
>>>> as things become more serious or repetitive. The same is true for T&S who
>>>> generally doesn't even become involved until it is a larger situation. I
>>>> will admit that whenever a local organizer or volunteer is involved the
>>>> seriousness is increased some because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as
>>>> in a position of influence and power which amplifies any and all issues
>>>> that arise. It does not, however, change the focus of trying to take the
>>>> least amount of actions possible.
>>>>
>>>> I will be the first to admit (and did when talking to Romaine
>>>> yesterday) that he has done an enormous amount of great work for events and
>>>> nothing we did was meant to demean that even if it felt that way to
>>>> Romaine. Like any Friendly Spaces actions nothing we did was meant as a
>>>> punishment (even though, again, I understand it can feel that way) but was
>>>> done because we felt they were the best thing to do for event safety. I can
>>>> certainly guarantee that the decision was not taken lightly.
>>>>
>>>> As many have noted the entire story is not out in the open and,
>>>> honestly, won't be. I know that won't make everyone happy but unfortunately
>>>> is almost always going to be the case for specific cases. If you want to
>>>> speak about process questions and the like, the team (including myself) is
>>>> certainly willing to do so. We have a table on the 2nd floor or you can
>>>> grab one of us around the conference.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> *James Alexander*
>>>> Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations)
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>

Sorry about that Lodewijk, I thought the change of title was plainly to
make the title more relevant to the discussion.

For all it's worth, my contribution to this discussion in the general
policy sense can be summarised in the capitalised word of my previous
reply's first sentence: TRANSPARENCY. What's private should remain private
(the case is often such when safety is at stake), and what's public should
remain public.

Apologies again, have a good afternoon

Mina

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>
wrote:

> Hi Mina,
>
> I intentionally started a new thread to be able to have a more abstract
> discussion about the general policy. I would highly appreciate it if you
> won't bring it back to the single case.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:48 AM Mina Theofilatou <saintfevrier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> People: our movement is founded on TRANSPARENCY. Which is - sadly -
>> totally lacking in the Support and Safety Department.
>>
>> The Friendly Spaces policy supposedly protects Wikimedians against
>> threat: examples of such have been provided. Romaine's behaviour quite
>> simply does not fall under the "threat" category.
>>
>> I specifically requested in the previous thread that SuSa at least
>> explained to us what the "threat" was. Numerous Wikimedians from all over
>> the world who gathered in Cape Town expressed our support both online and
>> in person to a respected Wikimedian who is dedicated to the movement and
>> has offered so tremendously to Wikimania (the three I have attended, and
>> can thus refer to. From my point of view, Romaine is the ONLY volunteer I
>> can remember running around to make sure everything is running smoothly
>> since my first day in Mexico City).
>>
>> I am repeating my plea here: what is it that roughly 90% of the
>> participants - from the responses I have read and the support I witnessed
>> in person - that we don't get????
>>
>> That said, I have personal experience of the shortcomings in the SuSa
>> dept. No need to go into details here.
>>
>> In closing, let me just say that I have connected the dots and I have a
>> pretty good idea of who complained and why this is being kept secret.
>> Elusive as this last statement may seem, it is no more elusive than James's
>> initial account of his decision on how to handle the incident (so please
>> James don't accuse me of speculating: you're the one who's leading me in
>> that direction. I am overwhelmed by your injustice against Romaine and if
>> you really are interested in resolving this issue and the bewilderment of
>> the community once and for all, it's quite easy: just be open about what
>> really happened)
>>
>> Romaine you have my unwavering support, regardless of the last word to
>> this incident. We need nice, warm, fun, hard-working and enthusiastic
>> people like you in the movement :)
>>
>> Best,
>> Mina
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, 21:52 Lodewijk, <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap
>>> how to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually
>>> discuss without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but
>>> will leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role
>>> in this conversation).
>>>
>>> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
>>> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
>>> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
>>> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
>>> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
>>> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
>>> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
>>> ever be a success.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued
>>>> next year Q(^_^Q)
>>>>
>>>> Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
>>>> needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.
>>>>
>>>> Deryck
>>>> (multicultural / "hug me")
>>>>
>>>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele <samoye_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future,
>>>>> is to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
>>>>> something.
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
>>>>> ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
>>>>> kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he
>>>>> is indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
>>>>> invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because
>>>>> of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public
>>>>> but the reason of removal was kept secret.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that
>>>>> it is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this
>>>>> as a punishment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific,
>>>>> personal sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people
>>>>> from different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is
>>>>> counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other
>>>>> Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to
>>>>> be.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public.
>>>>> But from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed
>>>>> that this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T&S
>>>>> and the people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public
>>>>> about his removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing
>>>>> well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but
>>>>> couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement
>>>>> always stay open for the Wikimedia movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Deryck
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public
>>>>> sphere more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of
>>>>> specific situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make
>>>>> people feel even less safe and make victims of everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Event Safety and Friendly Spaces is a top priority of any conference
>>>>> whether big or small as well as one of the issues that can be most
>>>>> difficult to deal with since it is always a balance of situations, feelings
>>>>> and people who are frequently acting in good faith. I can confirm that
>>>>> Trust & Safety was involved here and, like most people who are working on
>>>>> Friendly Spaces, we never aim to take serious actions if we are able to
>>>>> avoid it. Most issues are dealt with by local attendees or organizing
>>>>> volunteers with only short reminders or chats and escalate from there only
>>>>> as things become more serious or repetitive. The same is true for T&S who
>>>>> generally doesn't even become involved until it is a larger situation. I
>>>>> will admit that whenever a local organizer or volunteer is involved the
>>>>> seriousness is increased some because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as
>>>>> in a position of influence and power which amplifies any and all issues
>>>>> that arise. It does not, however, change the focus of trying to take the
>>>>> least amount of actions possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be the first to admit (and did when talking to Romaine
>>>>> yesterday) that he has done an enormous amount of great work for events and
>>>>> nothing we did was meant to demean that even if it felt that way to
>>>>> Romaine. Like any Friendly Spaces actions nothing we did was meant as a
>>>>> punishment (even though, again, I understand it can feel that way) but was
>>>>> done because we felt they were the best thing to do for event safety. I can
>>>>> certainly guarantee that the decision was not taken lightly.
>>>>>
>>>>> As many have noted the entire story is not out in the open and,
>>>>> honestly, won't be. I know that won't make everyone happy but unfortunately
>>>>> is almost always going to be the case for specific cases. If you want to
>>>>> speak about process questions and the like, the team (including myself) is
>>>>> certainly willing to do so. We have a table on the 2nd floor or you can
>>>>> grab one of us around the conference.
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> *James Alexander*
>>>>> Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations)
>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>

Hi all,



I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate
on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate,
as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect
for the people involved.



Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences
this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space
policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to
the policy in the future.



This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all
people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to
be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.



One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other,
non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
exception, but everyday reality.



Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason.
Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens
also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most
of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences
for those who commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it.
According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified
professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women
has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes
to these cases.

Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a
societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware,
that inappropriate behavior has consequences.



Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to make
all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at events,
can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like friendly
space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for
achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question,
is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.



I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on
trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will
keep fostering this together.


best

Lilli


------------------------------

<#_ftnref1>[1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf


--
Lilli Iliev

Projektmanagerin Politik
project manager public policy

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207

Thanks for writing this Lilli - I completely agree. Lots of opinions
from people going "well this person didn't harass me" or "I don't know
the specifics but maybe it's just cultural differences" or "omg the
WMF has done something outrageous again" do not really help this kind
of situation.

If our objective is to make sure everyone is welcome in the Wikimedia
movement it's vital that something like the Friendly Space policy
exists and is enforced.

Chris

>
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here. It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the exception, but everyday reality.
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Lilli Iliev, 29/07/2018 20:04:
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as
> well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how
> other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what
> happened and judge the case or the person in question.

I'll note that this is valid both ways. So, to be consistent, you
shouldn't jump at the conclusion that the outcome of the case was
correct, just as you are asking not to jump to the conclusion it was wrong.

Federico

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lilli Iliev, 29/07/2018 20:04:
> > One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as
> > well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how
> > other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what
> > happened and judge the case or the person in question.
>
> I'll note that this is valid both ways. So, to be consistent, you
> shouldn't jump at the conclusion that the outcome of the case was
> correct, just as you are asking not to jump to the conclusion it was wrong.
>

True. But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make
friendly-space violations a matter of public debate, so we cannot resolve
this the wiki way. Instead, we *have* to trust the people entrusted with
enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible, and competent.

It is still possible, of course, that they would make an occasional
mistake. But we *still* can't turn a given action (or inaction) into a
matter of public debate. We still have to trust the team.

What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy
itself. If a significant opinion forms in favor of adding, changing, or
removing some elements from the policy, that could be input for the team(s)
enforcing the policy.

A.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 7:04 PM Lilli Iliev <lilli.iliev@wikimedia.de>
wrote:

> According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified
> professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1].
>

Where did you get that figure from? When I Control+F the number "75"
nowhere in that document you linked appears that number, and there is no
mention to "qualified professions or top management jobs" either.

It is also worth noting that their definition of harassment (page 11)
includes "unwelcome touching" (I suppose touching a shoulder would qualify
as harassment under this definition).

Regards,
Micru

There is a gulf between behavior that might make someone uncomfortable,
which may be the result of cultural differences, and harassment or
violence. We should take care to ensure people who need some education on
the former don't feel like they have been found guilty of the latter.

And such policies and programs have to be open to review and criticism.
Being necessary and hardwon does not make them infallible and must not
insulate them from any scrutiny.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 1:04 PM Lilli Iliev <lilli.iliev@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate
> on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate,
> as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect
> for the people involved.
>
>
>
> Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences
> this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space
> policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to
> the policy in the future.
>
>
>
> This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all
> people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to
> be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
>
>
>
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
> as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other,
> non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
> judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
> It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
> irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
> this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
> exception, but everyday reality.
>
>
>
> Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason.
> Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens
> also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most
> of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences
> for those who commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it.
> According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified
> professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN
> Women has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it
> comes to these cases.
>
> Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a
> societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware,
> that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
>
>
>
> Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to
> make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at
> events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like
> friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for
> achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question,
> is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
>
>
>
> I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on
> trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will
> keep fostering this together.
>
>
> best
>
> Lilli
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <#m_2997935674535597173__ftnref1>[1]
> http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf
>
>
> --
> Lilli Iliev
>
> Projektmanagerin Politik
> project manager public policy
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>

On 29 July 2018 at 18:27, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass
> me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural
> differences"

I'm one of the people who commented, early on, on that original
thread; and I don't believe that describes my post.

I did note that there was prima face evidence that a community member
who had a disability (my word for it; not theirs) appeared to have
been discriminated against, at least in part, due to the effects of
that disability. I would expect or "safe space" policy to ensure that
this did not happen.

I have not seen a single response, to date, that has addressed this
point; either specifically or in general.

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Hello.
Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
> to make sure everyone is welcome

You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too
loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?


The hole case is a primary example why such things as a
friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used
with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really
are misbehaving, but against normal people.

If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it.
That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real
problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not
needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There
are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem;
use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.

The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing.
If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody
important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is
no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the
question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is
called Willkür (?arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good
reasons we got rid of it.


Sincerely,
DaB.

P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a
friendly-space-policy.


--
Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)

I disagree that there is no use for a policy at all. Sure, there are laws,
but I would prefer not to have to use them - that we can avoid misbehavior
in the first place. Having a good and consistent policy helps Wikipedians
navigate. Don't (just) define what is forbidden, but (also) define what is
'good behavior'. For some people this is obvious, but there are also
community members that find comfort in knowing what is a safe guideline to
follow. There are also community members that will find comfort in knowing
that they can expect certain behavior from their colleagues, no matter the
country the event happens to be organized in.

I do agree however, that arbitrariness is not a good outcome. If there is
even the impression that there is arbitrariness, the value of the policy is
tainted. This is why I'm asking to review the policy - not because I
disagree with the core principles, but because I don't like how it plays
out - at the very least in the perception. But in this, I'm starting to
repeat myself.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM DaB. <wp@dabpunkt.eu> wrote:

> Hello.
> Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
> > to make sure everyone is welcome
>
> You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too
> loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?
>
>
> The hole case is a primary example why such things as a
> friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used
> with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really
> are misbehaving, but against normal people.
>
> If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it.
> That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real
> problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not
> needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There
> are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem;
> use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.
>
> The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing.
> If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody
> important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is
> no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the
> question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is
> called Willkür (?arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good
> reasons we got rid of it.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> DaB.
>
> P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a
> friendly-space-policy.
>
>
> --
> Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
> PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>

Hi all,

someone asked me not to comment on this issue anymore, but as I think/hope
that we are now on the meta level, let me remind everyone that a policy is
just a particular aggregate state of norms. Nobody here seems to doubt that
we need norms, especially at and around events. And norms often require
active application. So somebody should take the leadership task of taking
this debate further, but not without disecting it into the three things it
is about:

a) pros and cons of having norms congealed in the form of a policy
b) the ways of application / enforcement of those norms
c) how to maintain consensus on the standards for infringement

While the last of those three parts might seem to be the most difficult, I
suspect that b) is actually the most complex one to solve.

Best
John

Am So., 29. Juli 2018 um 23:14 Uhr schrieb Lodewijk <
lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>:

> I disagree that there is no use for a policy at all. Sure, there are laws,
> but I would prefer not to have to use them - that we can avoid misbehavior
> in the first place. Having a good and consistent policy helps Wikipedians
> navigate. Don't (just) define what is forbidden, but (also) define what is
> 'good behavior'. For some people this is obvious, but there are also
> community members that find comfort in knowing what is a safe guideline to
> follow. There are also community members that will find comfort in knowing
> that they can expect certain behavior from their colleagues, no matter the
> country the event happens to be organized in.
>
> I do agree however, that arbitrariness is not a good outcome. If there is
> even the impression that there is arbitrariness, the value of the policy is
> tainted. This is why I'm asking to review the policy - not because I
> disagree with the core principles, but because I don't like how it plays
> out - at the very least in the perception. But in this, I'm starting to
> repeat myself.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM DaB. <wp@dabpunkt.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>> Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
>> > to make sure everyone is welcome
>>
>> You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too
>> loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?
>>
>>
>> The hole case is a primary example why such things as a
>> friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used
>> with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really
>> are misbehaving, but against normal people.
>>
>> If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it.
>> That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real
>> problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not
>> needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There
>> are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem;
>> use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.
>>
>> The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing.
>> If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody
>> important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is
>> no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the
>> question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is
>> called Willkür (?arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good
>> reasons we got rid of it.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> DaB.
>>
>> P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a
>> friendly-space-policy.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
>> PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>

I have no personal knowledge of the recent events at Wikimania, and I will
speak about only the general principles involved.


> True. But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make
> friendly-space violations a matter of public debate,
>

Please provide evidence that backs up that point. I have repeatedly seen
similar assertions made by WMF staff with no data or analysis to support it.


> so we cannot resolve this the wiki way. Instead, we *have* to trust the
> people entrusted with enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible,
> and competent.
>

I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't trust judges to put people in jail
simply because they happen to be judges. I trust judges to put people in
jail after the publication of convincing evidence and reasoning to support
their intended course of action.

The standard of evidence required to remove someone from office, or remove
them from an event, can be lower than the standard required to put someone
in jail, but I still want mostly transparent due process to happen so that:

1. people who allege that misconduct has taken place have significant
visibility into how their complaints are handled and thus, hopefully, can
have confidence that the accusations are investigated in a responsible
manner instead of being carelessly dismissed, and
2. people are not victimized with clearly false or poorly supported
accusations that the authorities recklessly use as a basis for issuing
sanctions instead of conducting a responsible investigation.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
> as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other,
> non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
> judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
> It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
> irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
> this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
> exception, but everyday reality.
>
>
>>
>>
Transparency is the only way forward, a process where a known, trusted, and
respected community member is sanction behind closed doors by a group of
faceless, nameless individuals is never going to produce a trusted
outcome. One immediate re action would be to publish for every event, a
list of the people who are responsible for the decisions. When they make
a decision they must be able to immediately defend that decision and the
actions taken, all parties must be clear on the reasons otherwise we do end
with what took place. Its this lack of transparency, understanding, and
silence that has brought us to this point.


In the world most of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no
> tangible consequences for those who commit it, but severe effects on those
> who experience it


Even in this community it takes place, its seams to me we spend a lot of
time learning but very little time understanding because we keep finding
transparency is a common issue when things go astray.


On 30 July 2018 at 06:15, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I have no personal knowledge of the recent events at Wikimania, and I will
> speak about only the general principles involved.
>
>
>> True. But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make
>> friendly-space violations a matter of public debate,
>>
>
> Please provide evidence that backs up that point. I have repeatedly seen
> similar assertions made by WMF staff with no data or analysis to support it.
>
>
>> so we cannot resolve this the wiki way. Instead, we *have* to trust the
>> people entrusted with enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible,
>> and competent.
>>
>
> I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't trust judges to put people in jail
> simply because they happen to be judges. I trust judges to put people in
> jail after the publication of convincing evidence and reasoning to support
> their intended course of action.
>
> The standard of evidence required to remove someone from office, or remove
> them from an event, can be lower than the standard required to put someone
> in jail, but I still want mostly transparent due process to happen so that:
>
> 1. people who allege that misconduct has taken place have significant
> visibility into how their complaints are handled and thus, hopefully, can
> have confidence that the accusations are investigated in a responsible
> manner instead of being carelessly dismissed, and
> 2. people are not victimized with clearly false or poorly supported
> accusations that the authorities recklessly use as a basis for issuing
> sanctions instead of conducting a responsible investigation.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>


--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.

Hello John.
Am 29.07.2018 um 23:40 schrieb John Hendrik Weitzmann:
> Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around
> events.

I was at 2 Wikimanias, 5 WikiCons, several workshops and meetings, and
nearly 2 dozen of WMDE-chapter-meeting – and only the very least of them
had a written down policy: And we managed to survive too. Even better,
because we had no unneeded arguments about a policy.

When I go to a meeting of Wikipedians I want to talk with people. I
don’t want to worry about if my current behavior is in line with the
current policy. I will respect the other people around me, I will try to
not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example:
being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure
that there will be a solution.
I don’t need a list of norms that somebody defined who may had a
different cultural background – or even worse: the intersecting set of
what is ok in all cultures (that may/will be the empty set).


Good night.
DaB.




--
Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)

Hi dab,
I'm glad you didn't experience any problems.
May i ask how you conclude that we "survived"? What does it mean? No
incidents? No murders? No near-incidents? I'm just trying to understand how
you evaluate the success of a (no) policy.
Lodewijk


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 02:24 DaB. <wp@dabpunkt.eu> wrote:

> Hello John.
> Am 29.07.2018 um 23:40 schrieb John Hendrik Weitzmann:
> > Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around
> > events.
>
> I was at 2 Wikimanias, 5 WikiCons, several workshops and meetings, and
> nearly 2 dozen of WMDE-chapter-meeting – and only the very least of them
> had a written down policy: And we managed to survive too. Even better,
> because we had no unneeded arguments about a policy.
>
> When I go to a meeting of Wikipedians I want to talk with people. I
> don’t want to worry about if my current behavior is in line with the
> current policy. I will respect the other people around me, I will try to
> not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example:
> being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure
> that there will be a solution.
> I don’t need a list of norms that somebody defined who may had a
> different cultural background – or even worse: the intersecting set of
> what is ok in all cultures (that may/will be the empty set).
>
>
> Good night.
> DaB.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
> PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>

Hi all,
I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I would also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in position where someone takes an advantage of his position to create around these women a forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not the case that started this thread.

To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in qualified professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable position.

In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both parties.

The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy has a value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an exaggerated use.

And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.

I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly” to don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space policy when this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this first warning.

I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of the wolf and the lamb of Esopo.

The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created mainly to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to don’t introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc. Because every time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using these categories, there is always a part which is discriminated.

Kind regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch

From: Lilli Iliev
Sent: 29 July 2018 19:05
To: wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

Hi all,
 
I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate, as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect for the people involved.
 
Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to the policy in the future.
 
This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
 
One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here. It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the exception, but everyday reality.
 
Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason. Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences for those who commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it. According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes to these cases.
Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware, that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
 
Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question, is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
 
I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will keep fostering this together.

best
Lilli


[1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf


--
Lilli Iliev

Projektmanagerin Politik
project manager public policy

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207



---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to
Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You
can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already
stated the obvious.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 08:39 Ilario Valdelli, <ilario.valdelli@wikimedia.ch>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I
> would also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in
> position where someone takes an advantage of his position to create around
> these women a forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not
> the case that started this thread.
>
>
>
> To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly
> because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in
> qualified professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable
> position.
>
>
>
> In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both
> parties.
>
>
>
> The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy
> has a value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an
> exaggerated use.
>
>
>
> And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.
>
>
>
> I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly”
> to don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space
> policy when this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this
> first warning.
>
>
>
> I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination
> introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of
> inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of
> the wolf and the lamb of Esopo.
>
>
>
> The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created
> mainly to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to
> don’t introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc.
> Because every time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using
> these categories, there is always a part which is discriminated.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Wikipedia: Ilario
> Skype: valdelli
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
>
> *From: *Lilli Iliev <lilli.iliev@wikimedia.de>
> *Sent: *29 July 2018 19:05
> *To: *wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> *Subject: *[Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate
> on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate,
> as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect
> for the people involved.
>
>
>
> Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences
> this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space
> policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to
> the policy in the future.
>
>
>
> This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all
> people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to
> be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
>
>
>
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
> as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other,
> non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
> judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
> It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
> irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
> this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
> exception, but everyday reality.
>
>
>
> Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason.
> Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens
> also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most
> of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences
> for those who commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it.
> According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified
> professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women
> has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes
> to these cases.
>
> Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a
> societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware,
> that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
>
>
>
> Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to
> make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at
> events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like
> friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for
> achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question,
> is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
>
>
>
> I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on
> trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will
> keep fostering this together.
>
>
>
> best
>
> Lilli
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf
>
>
>
> --
>
> Lilli Iliev
>
>
> Projektmanagerin Politik
>
> project manager public policy
>
>
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Mail
> priva di virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_5358394905228150261_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>

Probably I am saying the same and this means to don’t use categories in this discussion.

Is not it clear?

Kind regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch

From: Philip Kopetzky
Sent: 30 July 2018 09:01
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious. 

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 08:39 Ilario Valdelli, <ilario.valdelli@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I would also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in position where someone takes an advantage of his position to create around these women a forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not the case that started this thread.
 
To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in qualified professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable position.
 
In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both parties.
 
The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy has a value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an exaggerated use.
 
And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.
 
I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly” to don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space policy when this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this first warning.
 
I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of the wolf and the lamb of Esopo.
 
The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created mainly to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to don’t introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc. Because every time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using these categories, there is always a part which is discriminated.
 
Kind regards
 
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
 
From: Lilli Iliev
Sent: 29 July 2018 19:05
To: wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
 
Hi all,
 
I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate, as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect for the people involved.
 
Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to the policy in the future.
 
This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
 
One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here. It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the exception, but everyday reality.
 
Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason. Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences for those who commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it. According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes to these cases.
Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware, that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
 
Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question, is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
 
I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will keep fostering this together.
 
best
Lilli
 

[1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf


--
Lilli Iliev

Projektmanagerin Politik
project manager public policy
 
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
 


Mail priva di virus. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Philip,
I am going to try to say this politely.
1. How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space Policy because of their/our identity as white males? And are you certain that everyone who has so far participated in this discussion is a white male?
2. A public discussion is already happening. Whether the discussion should happen in a different venue is certainly OK to ask, but I see no reason to attrempt to silence the discussion so long as it generally remains on a topic of public importance.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) 




 From: Philip Kopetzky
Sent: 30 July 2018 09:01
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news) Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious. 

White female speaking: this is an important discussion for EVERYONE. I will
refrain from replying often as I was upset by the incident in CT, and I
have personal experience of an incident at Wikimania 2016, and thus I find
it hard to not get carried away. So I will reiterate that TRANSPARENCY is
what we need.

(And in reply to WMF input to this thread: just because the Trust & Safety
team bears the name does not mean that they unconditionally deserve our
trust, nor that our safety is safeguarded. Names and titles abound in
society. If content adhered to name there would be no need for dispute and
conflict)

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 10:53 Pine W, <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Philip,
>
> I am going to try to say this politely.
>
> 1. How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space
> Policy because of their/our identity as white males? And are you certain
> that everyone who has so far participated in this discussion is a white
> male?
>
> 2. A public discussion is already happening. Whether the discussion should
> happen in a different venue is certainly OK to ask, but I see no reason to
> attrempt to silence the discussion so long as it generally remains on a
> topic of public importance.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *30 July 2018 09:01
> *To: *Wikimania general list (open subscription)
> <wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
>
>
>
> Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to
> Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You
> can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already
> stated the obvious.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>