Content deleted Content added
Line 363: *:::I believe that you got automatic membership when you joined the Cabal ([[WP:TINC|tinc]]). --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC) *Hi Maggie, above, you wrote (in relation to providing details to the accused) {{tq|We have worked to become more specific especially with warnings issued in the last year, but it is true that specifics may be withheld when the need for protection seems overwhelming}}. Could you clarify the latter? Previous discussion seems to have indicated that only bare minimum details would be provided if the accuser had requested complete anonymity and even where there didn't appear to be any off-wiki activity (or risk of such) at all (and the accused's edits are obviously being monitored). This is in relevance to the temporary CRC and the areas it might be looking at, but it's also a likely flash point with the UCOC and ultimate instances there. In short, in cases where the need for protection ''isn't'' overwhelming, why aren't much more details being provided? - ''"overwhelming"'' seems to impose quite a high limit before evidence is restrained. I'd be concerned in an attempt to audit a case where I felt not just that information was lacking but there was a possibility it might be lacking due to disclosure rules. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 16:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC) ::Hi, [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]]. I want to be sure I'm answering your question. :) I might be misunderstanding you. When I wrote that "We have worked to become more specific especially with warnings issued in the last year, but it is true that specifics may be withheld when the need for protection seems overwhelming" I was speaking in terms of the specificity of ''why'' we are issuing warnings to the recipients of such warnings. As an example, we do not offer such evidence when we have credible belief that a person is issuing off-wiki threats to a user and ''especially'' when there is evidence this person knows where that person is. In such cases, we default to protecting the person who reaches out to us. Saying, "We know you threatened somebody" might very well trigger the threat. ::The committee ''should'' be receiving case files unredacted. One potential exception here might be, say, if we have a blackmail threat based around doxxing, which we have in the past -- suppose somebody attempts to unduly influence a functionary by threatening to reveal personal information they have (or think they have - they might be wrong; it's happened) about them to influence their on-wiki actions. This is clearly a violation of our Terms of Use, but there might be circumstances that would make it fall into "borderline." In such case, I would imagine we would redact the personal information from the case file. But we have no blanket policies as yet - this is just me thinking of a case where the committee's file might be redacted. (The committee won't be reviewing bright line cases, like allegations of sexual assault at an event, so such information would not need to be shared ''or'' redacted.) ::Please feel free to let me know if I missed your point, though. :) --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 18:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||