ユニバーサルな行動規範/2021年聞き取り調査/施行

This page is a translated version of the page Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Enforcement and the translation is 66% complete.

このページでは、2021年1月下旬から3月上旬に行った、ユニバーサル行動規範 (UCoC) プロジェクト第2フェーズのローカル言語版聞き取り調査のまとめを記します。それぞれの言語版がよく使う協議のチャネルやプラットフォームを利用して、聞き取り先の言語コミュニティとUCoC 方針の施行方法を話し合いました。個別のアウトリーチの成果は次のリンクをご参照ください。

はじめに

I2020年10月、草稿委員会はコミュニティとのフィードバック共有の公開の過程の締めくくりとしてユニバーサル行動規範 (UCoC) 方針の草稿をまとめ上げました。草稿はその後、ウィキメディア財団の理事会の査読にかけました。UCoC プロジェクトチームは次に第2フェーズの、どんな道すじがグローバルな方針施行に可能かどうか、さらにコミュニティと協働する準備にかかりました。ウィキメディア運動全体に適用できるユニバーサルなガイドライン一式の草稿作りはそれ自体が複雑な作業でした。可能性のある施行の道すじを探るタスクはますます困難だと草稿作りの段階で明白でした。

これは特定のシステムで、既存のローカルな組織統治のモデルを多様に組み合わせ、なおかつ、きちんと機能するべきものにとりわけ当てはまります。この挑戦的な課題を認識し、信頼安全部の方針チーム（Policy team）では調査を行い、さまざまなコミュニティに既存の施行の手順を把握しようとしました。ウィキメディアの生態系に備わった複雑さ、コミュニティの多様な機能のしかたという条件から、すべての要素を収集し慎重に判断して、特定の施行方法の有効性を効果的に定義することは困難でした。

The project team collected as much information as available, to map, understand, and distinguish the various practised enforcement models in different communities. This included checking which communities have governing bodies and functionaries such as ArbComs, Checkusers, or Bureaucrats that look into cases of behavioural violations. The team analyzed factors such as the general activity levels at the administrative notice boards of different communities, the existence of an appeal process, and the average number of blocks that a community issued over a certain period. Taking all this information into account, the team then classified the communities into three groups: communities with effective enforcement systems, communities with moderately functional enforcement systems, and communities with little or no enforcement systems.

The team hired three facilitators from each of these categories taking into account potential facilitators' experience levels in their projects, their language skills, and their knowledge of other communities in the movement.

UCoC プロジェクトチームは2021年1月にローカルの言語版の聞き取り調査を立ち上げ、他言語話者の進行役9名の補佐で合計21言語コミュニティと組んで、ウィキデータとウィキメディアコモンズも対象にしました。

関与の割合

聞き取り調査は対象のコミュニティで一斉に始めました。最初に井戸端もしくはコミュニティのポータルで告知しました。それに続いてコミュニティの慣例に従い、複数のチャネルでも対話を交わしています。

Overall, the six-week-long facilitation process was divided into three major segments. The first stage involved posting the call for participation on community portals and widely used social media channels. This was done to inform the community about the start of the consultation and to invite them into an open discussion on the subject of UCoC enforcement. The second stage involved launching surveys. It was observed in previous consultations that many community members preferred surveys as a more secure place to express their opinion. Through surveys, a large number of users voice their concerns or share their ideas in an anonymised manner. Therefore, this avenue of input sharing was kept open in Phase 2 consultations as well. Most of the surveys were posted publicly as site notices on community discussion pages, which facilitated wider outreach. The third stage of the consultation focused on getting more personalized inputs. Several virtual group meetings and personal chats were organized with interested community members. This provided them with a platform for open verbal discussion and collective brainstorming on feasible enforcement pathways for UCoC for their respective communities.

関与の媒体

第1フェーズの初回聞き取り調査同様に、関与の媒体はコミュニティと参加者のニーズ、好み、既存の慣習に適するように定義しました。進行役チーム（facilitation team）はコミュニティのより広範な立脚点の参加者がそれぞれが居心地が良いと感じるレベルで協議に参加しやすいよう、できるだけ多様な方法やチャネルを取り入れています。

The facilitation team received responses from 3553 community members. The number is indicative of the users and not the number of responses as multiple responses from a single user were counted as one. The redundancies concerning responses from similar users on different platforms were also removed. For example, if one user took part in discussions on multiple channels (village pump, social media chats, group calls, one to one meetings etc.), they were still counted as one. However, this could not be entirely done for the responses received through surveys, as a majority of them were submitted anonymously. Thus, it is likely that some of the users who responded to surveys also engaged on at least one other medium. The total number of participants who responded through surveys is 2995, and the number of people who responded through other mediums is 558.

聞き取り調査の洞察

The local language consultations brought out diverse ideas on potential enforcement pathways for UCoC, the structure of enforcement bodies, and peer support systems for the targets of harassment.

The findings of individual language outreach can be read below:

フィードバック

As expected, the team received a diverse set of ideas about workable enforcement mechanisms for UCoC. The phase 2 consultations which were primarily focused on the enforcement discussion of the UCoC, was an open conversation. This means there were numerous back and forth exchanges between community members and facilitators. Because it was a dialogue, it is hard to quantify the ideas shared on the potential enforcement mechanism and enforcement body. Communities acknowledged that it is imperative to form a feasible enforcement system for UCoC to be effective. However, the ideas around what that enforcement system should look like were extremely varied. Some were shared with certainty while others with apprehension. There was no clear unanimous choice and similarly no unified opposition. It was observed that communities felt implementing one standard structure throughout the movement would be impractical. If implemented, the system will have to go through multiple rounds of changes and amendments, until it can satisfactorily be called functional by the communities.

施行システムについて寄せられたアイデアは以下にまとめてあります：

1. コミュニティ内にローカルの組織を作る

Formation of local bodies to specifically look into and handle cases of conduct violations, was one of the most popular choices from several community members in almost all the language communities. Some communities wanted the local body to be something like ArbComs whereas some wanted a group of Administrators to be appointed within the community with the sole responsibility of looking into behavioural issues. A few communities also supported the idea of creating an altogether new body for UCoC so as not to add to the responsibility of existing functionaries. But, it was stressed throughout the consultation that the knowledge of cultural context and language is imperative to anyone responsible for handling cases of abuse or harassment.

For this choice, several community members also said that to function effectively, the local body would need to have support from the Foundation so that communities can build their own tools and resources to better handle issues at the local level.

When it comes to enforcement, I want the projects with the arbitration committee to remain self-ruled/independent, in the sense that no outsider can, under the pretext of UCoC, impose locks / global bans (blocks/locks) on users solely for their actions on those projects. [...] In my opinion, local communities should self-regulate; only in extreme cases should there be an intervention by WMF; and this is also unlikely to change because even now WMF can intervene with the help of the so-called Office Actions.
— ポーランド語コミュニティの参加者

Administrators already deal with some of the unacceptable behaviors in the UCoC as there is considerable overlap between the UCoC and local policies, administrators seem the most natural choice to handle reports. I would be concerned that if stewards were put in charge of handling reports they could be overwhelmed if the volume of requests is high across all Wikimedia projects. I also don't think a new global body is necessary given that there are already several user groups that deal with similar issues.
— ウィキデータコミュニティの参加者

2. グローバルな施行組織を作る

The communities were divided on whether this body should exist on top of local enforcement bodies or as an isolated one. According to some community members, a global oversight is imperative to successfully implement a global policy such as the UCoC. But many communities also made it clear that they do not want that body to be either a team within the Foundation or a body appointed solely by the Foundation. Most of the comments received indicated a preference for a community-elected global enforcement body such as a global ArbCom. It was expressed that the composition of this body, selection process, and term lengths, would need to be thoroughly considered.

I support the establishment of an Ombudsman Commission to enforce the code of conduct, maybe the sysops could be the one that would help its enforcement. If there is a dispute between editors that is regarding code of conduct violation, it should be handled per the procedures. My next questions would probably be about how to establish the Ombudsman Commission, once the discussion has started.
— インドネシア語コミュニティの参加者

In my opinion, it is better to assign an elected group of individuals from the community (they don't have to be administrators) who directly have relations with the foundation.
— アラブ語コミュニティの参加者

3. ローカルの施行とグローバルな組織が組む

Another major option popular among the communities was the setting up of local resolution councils/bodies for UCoC that have a defined escalation channel leading to the global body. Communities expressed that often there are cases where the local enforcement bodies are not or might not be the appropriate body to look into behavioural violations. Particular areas of concern were:

Cases where an admin or a member of the enforcement body is involved in the case.
Cases where a target does not feel safe reporting the issue to the local body
The case involved is remarkably complex

For this selection, there were also strong suggestions of setting up a system of appeal process so that reporters who are not happy with the way their cases were handled could approach the global body for a review.

The global body can work like an appeal panel which will come into picture after exhausting the existing local arbitration methods.
— ヨルバ語コミュニティの参加者

At every level i.e from the community level to executives of the WMF there must be a team/cell/desk to handle UCoC violation issues. At community levels, the members could be elected publicly by registered users. This team shouldn't be bigger than the 4-5 members and one of the members must be a female member. When issues and grievances pertaining to female editors must be addressed by a nominated female member. Fixed criteria must be set for the membership of the committee.
— サンタリ語コミュニティの参加者

4. 財団の信頼安全チーム

A very small portion of the responses also suggest that some communities are not opposed to the idea of T&S playing some role in the overall enforcement process. For the most part, this option was only considered acceptable in cases where individual communities did not have the capabilities to develop an enforcement system on their own.

A combination of a global committee and T&S can be put in place
— コモンズコミュニティの参加者

We are all volunteers at the end of the day, we only have so much time. Am I willing to sit in the committee to talk about labour and law? Not really. This is my job, my profession. I enjoy myself by writing articles [...]. We have been trying to get the committee going on Afrikaans Wikipedia for the last few years. [...] People are interested not in politics, but knowledge, in birds and fishes and dams and bridges and roads. None of us is interested in politics, we have spent too much time going at it anyway.
— アフリカーンス語コミュニティの参加者

5. 通報システム

There was unanimous demand for a reporting system that allows users to report issues anonymously. The facilitators discovered that in many communities, a vast majority of harassment cases are never reported to the governing bodies because of the absence of secure reporting mechanisms. This is particularly true in smaller communities. Facilitators discovered that way more harassment cases happen in their communities than are reported. This was news even to facilitators who have spent over 10 years in their communities. This attests that the fear of speaking up is deeply entrenched in many communities. On top of this, multiple factors make reporting hard and also complex to deal with.

利用者が通報をためらう場合として、複数のコミュニティから以下の状況が共有されました。

未成年が通報者本人である。
異なる法規が関与する事案を通報する場合。ここでは、違反者と標的にされた人がそれぞれ別個の法律の規定を受ける場合が最も多いです。
性別に関与する事案の通報。そのような事案は通報率が一般に低く、多くはすでに難しい状況がさらに悪化するのではないかという恐れが原因です。
事案発生から長期を経てしまい通報しにくい
名前が世間に知られた人あるいは運動で権利を持った地位の利用者を通報する場合。同左は逆も真です。権利を預かる人たちは事案を通報しにくいと明かしています。
男性利用者は性的嫌がらせの通報を渋る傾向にある。
言語の壁を越えて通報する。

ウェブサイトやSNSで既知の事案に見られるように、トークページにはっきりとわかる「通報」ボタンを置くべき。これをクリックすると利用者が事件について書くページが開く。
— イタリア語コミュニティの参加者

通報には代替の道筋として非公開（保護下の）通報経路があるべきです。しかしながら、非公開の通報経路を使用する場合は違反行動に限定するべきです。
— 朝鮮語コミュニティの参加者

心配なこと

複数の利用者はウィキメディアのプロジェクト群で自らの活動が嫌がらせ行為の標的になったり目撃したと明かしています。しかしそのような事例は通知されていないか受理されてもウィキメディアのプラットフォームの外部で通知したため具体的な対応に至らなかったと言います。多くの利用者からそのような方針違反もやはり UCoC のもとで取り扱うべきだと主張しました。

少なくともコミュニティ1件から UCoC の差別禁止の方針に反対を受けています。このコミュニティはノンバイナリーであると表明し少数派グループに属する編集者もしくは編集者たちの存在を、自分たちのコミュニティにはいないと明白に否定しています。それでもこのコミュニティから発せられた調査結果には優位な数のノンバイナリだと性別を示した回答がありました。調整役によるとこれらの数字を公開すると、当該のコミュニティのぶんれつを加速してしまうといいます。

女性参加者ならびに少数派グループ参加者の関与は低率で進みました。関与した人でも非公開のチャネルを介しています。あるコミュニティでは多くの女性は自由に自分の存在を示して調査に参加しても、性別は公開しないでほしいと調整役に頼んでいます。これは調整役には予想外であり、事前の印象として自分たちのコミュニティには女性の編集者は少ないし女性の編集者は安全に過ごせると思い込んでいたからです。ところが大勢が活動していました。常識として女性が性別を明かしたがらないということは広く知られてはいません。

主な教訓

少なくとも2件のコミュニティは自分たちのローカルの組織統治の仕組みに財団からいっさいの介入を受けたくないと述べました。これを回避するには自前の組織統治の仕組みをより規模拡充することに積極的です。それらのコミュニティの少なくとも片方は UCoC 同等の水準に揃えるためローカルの行動に関する方針に着手しており、さらにローカルの問題をコミュニティ内部で十全に解決するため、どのように施行のモデルを築く方策を考え始めています。

これと対照的に小規模なコミュニティのいくつかからプラットフォームで今後もコンテンツ作成に時間とリソースを注ぎたいのだと述べています。そのため財団から支援を受け UCoC との互換性のある方針や組織統治の仕組みを開発する必要があると見込まれます。中くらいの規模のコミュニティの大半は考えがぶつかったままです。現状の組織統治の形式を崩さず、サポートを受けられる解決策を求めています。

皆さんのサポートを募ります

コミュニティの多くの皆さんから嫌がらせ行為の標的になった人（target）を囲み仲間同士で支え合うグループを作ろうという発案が共有されました。利用者によっては嫌がらせ行為を通告した後で3種類のグループと向き合うことになり - 加害者の肩を持つ人たち、事案を公平に解決させようとする人たち、さらに標的となった人に精神的な支援を施そうとする人たちです。標的となった人にとって、すでに一定期間にわたり心痛を味わっており第3のグループは傑出しています。コミュニティの支援グループでは、より大きな事案の発生を予防するためにも、たとえ些細な規模の事案でも声に出して話してほしいとおすすめしています。

コミュニティの大多数はそのようなグループの組織を運動全体に設けるべきだと表明しました。複数のコミュニティは専門のプラットフォームもしくはチャネルを設立し、皆さんが支援を求めにきたりできるとしており、その他のコミュニティは小規模な非公開のグループならより安全な環境を提供できると指摘しましたこの会話はアイデアの受付をしましたが本格的なシステムを開発すると、開発が決まった場合、そのようなグループの誤用防止に特化して必要な作業がたくさん発生します。

この次には何があるの？

草案委員会（drafting committee）を設立しコミュニティから寄せられたフィードバックを査読します。同委員会は暫定的な施行の仕組み^※を理事会に提言し査読にかけます。（※＝potential enforcement mechanisms）