Patrick, Thank you for posting this -- excellent work done by our team and deep engagement with the community. I encourage everyone to review as we continue to assess best ways to support healthy and safe Wikimedia environment for all our contributors and readers. Lila On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*

Thanks Patrick, a wonderful first step. For future updates, I hope you can find ways to add data from automated analysis of interactions, like the League of Legends example Toby shared a few months back. Sam On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

Hi, Tobias. In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints of this happening to both men and women. Best, Maggie On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml(a)googlemail.com> wrote: -- Maggie Dennis Director, Support and Safety Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

On 30 January 2016 at 13:14, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Possibly an artefact of a self-selecting audience. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Hi, Tobias. The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to drive them away. Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks of one kind or another are sadly really common. Best, Maggie On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml(a)googlemail.com> wrote: -- Maggie Dennis Director, Support and Safety Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie! Tobias

Hi Tobias, Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed revenge porn being reported by this many people. But it is not surprising that the people who experienced the worst types of harassment, or type that the WMF and wikimedia community is the least able to address would respond to this survey. Without further verification, I would not suggest the 65% figure to be representative of the whole wikimedia community of people who are harassed. Most people understand that this type of survey sample would not produce results that are representative of the whole community. But it does show an example of a type of extreme harassment that poorly understood by the community. This information can help educate the WMF and the wikimedia community, and hopefully will help find better ways of assisting the people being harassed. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Maggie Dennis <mdennis(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

A similar situation happened to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&diff=685988175&oldi… or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request file delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags. I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but I feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use socialnetworks). Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of "tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed at harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction, regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator. Vito Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:

Il 30/01/2016 18:12, Jane Darnell ha scritto: Nope, I exactly meant the link I posted :D Mine wasn't a criticism of Bgwhite but I wanted to point out he dealt with it as that was a good-faith edit. As said I don't want to criticise him but this is, imvho, a sign of an overall lack of attention by us to potential harassment/libel/outing situations. Vito (meanwhile BDA, the troll above, is being "helped" by a good-faith user to reinstate his contents, but that's a different matter)

Some of the things that users might consider "revenge porn" would include porn that is sent to them via email (either images or text - both of which I've received), or images/comments posted to their userspace or to other places where it was intended to come to their attention (e.g., obviously inappropriate images posted to article talk pages). Links and "easter eggs" leading to similar content could also be considered "revenge porn". Context is often important. In particular, the Wikimedia projects host a vast quantity of images and media that are appropriate to a limited number of articles but would be inappropriate or even offensive in other presentations. Risker/Anne On 30 January 2016 at 13:37, Haitham Shammaa <hshammaa(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

"On 30 January 2016 at 14:20, Pierre-Selim <pierre-selim(a)huard.info> wrote: It certainly wasn't my intention to deny that this occurs, nor it's potentially devastating impact on victims - indeed, I've witnessed it happening to friends. Nor have I seen others denying it, in this discussion. I was referring to the claimed prevalence ("almost one third of the respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn"); which is not a credible either as a reflection of the wider community, or in the context of this survey, in which 38% reported experiencing harassment of any type; and which suggests a flawed sampling or measuring process. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, Trillium Corsage wrote: Unfortunately you memory is not quite correct regarding Lightbreather. She was not banned for complaining about being harassed, she was banned for repeated and persistent breaches of behavioural policies on Wikipedia, repeated breaches of topic bans related to gun control, ownership of articles, revert and edit warring, casting aspersions, causing disruption to make a point and, partictularly, outing attempting to out another editor (on and off Wikipedia) - despite being explicitly warned (more than once) that she must not do that. The full decision can be read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbrea… She was, very unfortunately and completely unacceptably, harassed off-wiki by two individuals during the case (so far as I am aware, independently). One of those individuals was banned as soon as we (arbcom) were made aware of the harassment as there was a clear and direct link to a Wikipedia user. There was not a direct link between the other harasser and any Wikipedia user, and so ArbCom, the English Wikipedia functionaries team and the Foundation spent a lot of time and effort investigating who the harasser was. This investigation produced an indirect link (with iirc at least four intermediate steps) to a specific Wikipedia editor, but there was no consensus that the link was strong enough to take action - although there was universal agreement that the perpertrator should be banned if identified. Basically there were three possibilities - 1. the Wikipedia editor and the harasser were the same person. 2. the Wikipedia editor was being framed. 3. the harassment was linked to the Wikipedia editor entirely coincidentally. Only in the case of 1 would action against the Wikipedia editor be justified, but the evidence was not strong enough to be sure this was the case. However bad the harassment is, it is important to remember that alleged perpretrators are still innocent until proven otherwise. After the case (1-2 months later I think) more evidence was found that bypassed the weakest link in the previous chain. After more investigation it was found that this link, while still indirect, was sufficient to connect the harassment to the Wikipedia editor and they were swiftly banned. Far from punishing Lightbreather for complaining about being harassed, Arbcom, Functionaries and the Foundation all offered her as much support as they were able to deal with the effects of the harassment, to identify her harasser and to take what real-world action she could against that person. Unfortunately, as the law in most jurisdictions is years or even decades behind the times when it comes to harassment, there is all too often very little that can be done through legal channels. In Lightbreather's case, I believe that Lightbreather, her harasser, the WMF and the external website on which she was harassed are all based in different jurisdictions which only makes things even more complicated. It thus really does not suprise me that the survey respondents report the effectiveness of legal action so poorly. Chris ---- Chris McKenna cmckenna(a)sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery