[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Vote

[Stella Ng]

Hello Xavier,

Thank you for your email, and sharing your observations and concerns. Many
other movement initiatives face similar challenges. Equitable participation
and engagement are something we are working to improve with each and every
interaction. The UCoC project team has poured a sizable amount of
discussion, planning and energy into outreach to the movement throughout
the process. The goal was to encourage participation from as many
communities as possible.


The ways the UCoC team encouraged participation can be seen through the
results of this work. The Revised Enforcement Guidelines are currently
translated into over 40 languages; voter information, banners, and emails
were also heavily translated. The project team hosted outreach and
conversation hours throughout the drafting process. We have made it a point
to invite and engage with many communities, particularly small and
medium-sized, and it is our goal to continue to ensure that the growing
communities and small language wikis are invited to engage with us. It is
our hope that as we progress, the UCoC and the Enforcement Guidelines will
create a better environment that will see more interaction from all
communities.

As we embark on the next steps and stages of this ongoing project, we will
increase engagement, conversations, and interaction with the growing
communities and small language wikis in as many languages, places, and
contexts as possible. The UCoC is an iterative process, and we will be
inviting opinions of how to make it more inclusive as we continue onwards.

Kind regards,

Stella Ng

On Behalf of the UCoC Project Team


On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:39 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi/Bona vesprada,
>
> Without meaning at all that I do not respect the results of this voting, I
> would like to call the attention to the fact that out of 3097 votes,
> practically 2000 are circumscribed to only 4 big home wikis: en.wiki
> (1000), de.wiki (500), fr.wiki (200) and es.wiki (150).
>
> Imho it is somehow concerning that 2/3 of the votes of such a key policy
> are heavily relying on the weight of those major projects. I understand the
> constraints in participation, but it isn't either a trivial value
> -considering how much do we read about the WMF efforts to promote the
> so-called “Global South” communities and the minority language wikis.
>
> There is a great essay on English Wikipedia, "Wikipedia:Silence does not
> imply consent when drafting new policies
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silence_does_not_imply_consent_when_drafting_new_policies>",
> that has a very thoughtful background and that I like very much to remind: 
> *"Silence
> implies consensus" is an old standby on Wikipedia. However, with regard to
> new policies and guidelines, this cannot apply, and silence should instead
> imply either indifference or a lack of proper exposure. If a proposal
> produces indifference in the community, it is not necessary. If a proposal
> has not been adequately exposed to the community, there is no just cause
> for implementing it as policy.*
>
> Kind regards/Salutacions,
>
> Xavier Dengra
> --- Original Message ---
> El dilluns, 13 de febrer 2023 a les 20:00, Shani Evenstein <
> sh...@wikimedia.org> va escriure:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
>
> *Today the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines
> vote were tallied*. We are pleased to report the results show that the
> Enforcement Guidelines are strongly supported by the community, with *76%
> of participants voting in support *of the Enforcement Guidelines.
>
>
> A report with a summary and analysis of comments submitted in the voting
> process is being prepared by the staff members supporting the Universal
> Code of Conduct work and will be available soon.
>
>
> Below is a message created by the staff members supporting the Universal
> Code of Conduct work, which has translations available on Meta-wiki
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Vote_results_announcement>
> .
>
>
> The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised
> Enforcement Guidelines
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines>
> has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated.
>
> After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are
> 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition.
> Statistics
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Voting_statistics>
> for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

[Stella Ng]

Thanks for pointing this out, Chico. I’ve left a comment on the ticket
there.  We appreciate that folks want to move things forward. Currently,
the UCoC is indirectly linked via the link to the Terms of Use, which notifies
all users that they are agreeing to abide by Board resolutions impacting
projects
.
However, adding UCoC links directly is a recommendation in the UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
,
so it’s best that we revisit this ticket in mid-February after the vote
results are finished.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 3:04 AM William Chan  wrote:

> Hi Chico,
>
> I disagree with your conclusion. The code is conduct is in force but
> there's no universal way of enforcing it. However, some communities which
> had previously been plagued with bad faith actors have already used the
> UCoC as a step towards introducing better governance initiatives.
> Another plus side, the UCoC had discouraged bad faith actors to a point
> where communities can push new initiatives that limit these bad faith
> actors without the fear of disruption from these bad actors.
>
> It is thus, for me, can at least define civility for some communities and
> introduce sanity back to these communities, (read: the Chinese Wikipedia).
>
> Regards,
> William
>
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 03:00 Chico Venancio, 
> wrote:
>
>> Nataliia,
>>
>> Thanks for addressing this issue, I do think your message clarified a lot
>> and moves us forward with some paths and goalposts.
>>
>> I do take objection to this statement, however.
>> > First, the UCoC is being enforced now. Not only does it help guide the
>> Wikimedia Foundation in its current actions (and has since it was adopted
>> by resolution [1]), but multiple communities have referred to it in their
>> own actions. The policy is in place already, and its enforcement by
>> communities is encouraged, there is no expectation that it be delayed until
>> the guidelines for globally approaching the enforcement of the policy are
>> agreed upon.
>>
>> Whatever the board's intentions are, the outcome is the UCoC is delayed
>> until we have enforcement guidelines. Both WMF and communities have acted
>> in this way and we could cite several examples of actions since the UCoC
>> approving resolution a bit over 2 years ago.
>>
>> For a single, very symbolic, example, let me point you in the right
>> direction of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T280886
>>
>> A full 4 months after the resolution, and now 20 months ago, I created a
>> rather simple task add links to the UCoC to all WMF wikis. Code for it was
>> written and it briefly was live before being reverted due to indecision on
>> where the text policy should live. I have called attention to WMF staff to
>> this crucial issue for the past 20 months, and yet we still do not even
>> link to the UCoC in our websites.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Chico Venancio
>>
>> Em qui., 5 de jan. de 2023 às 14:38, Nataliia Tymkiv <
>> ntym...@wikimedia.org> escreveu:
>>
>>> Dear Chico, and Peter, dear all.
>>>
>>> Speaking as the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, I
>>> have a few thoughts. First, the UCoC is being enforced now. Not only does
>>> it help guide the Wikimedia Foundation in its current actions (and has
>>> since it was adopted by resolution [1]), but multiple communities have
>>> referred to it in their own actions. The policy is in place already, and
>>> its enforcement by communities is encouraged, there is no expectation that
>>> it be delayed until the guidelines for globally approaching the enforcement
>>> of the policy are agreed upon.
>>>
>>> You do raise a valid question about the success of the last round of
>>> votes. At that point in time, as at this time, staff had recommended that
>>> we, the Board, review any version that passed a simple majority, but such a
>>> situation was never a guarantee of ratification. We respected the results
>>> of the vote – if communities at large could not support the outcome, we
>>> would not have evaluated it at all – but we were interested not only in
>>> support numbers but in causes of concern. What we noticed last time was
>>> that concerns coalesced around a few specific areas, so we felt the
>>> guidelines would benefit from deeper discussion and exploration of those
>>> specific areas. We wanted to make sure the enforcement guidelines were as
>>> widely understood and supported at their launch as they could be and
>>> greatly appreciate the work the communities have done together with the
>>> volunteer-led revisions drafting committee to explore those areas.
>>>
>>> With this next round of voting, we hope to find that the further
>>> conversations have led to alignment in these few challenging areas.
>>> Ideally, the guidelines will meet with even more support than last time. If
>>> not, if t

[Wikimedia-l] Comments Requested on the Revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

[Stella Ng]

Hello Everyone,

The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines revisions committee

is requesting comments regarding the Revised Enforcement Draft Guidelines
for the Universal Code of Conduct

(UCoC). This review period will be open from 8 September 2022 until 8
October 2022.

The committee collaborated to revise these draft guidelines based on input
gathered from the community discussion period from May through July, as
well as the community vote that concluded in March 2022.

The revisions are focused on the following four areas:

   1.

   To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
   2.

   To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
   comprehension by non-experts;
   3.

   To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
   4.

   To review the balancing of the privacy of the accuser and the accused

The committee requests comments and suggestions about these revisions by 8
October 2022. From there, the revisions committee anticipates further
revising the guidelines based on community input.

   -

   Find the Revised Guidelines on Meta
   
,
   and a comparison page in some languages
   


Everyone may share comments in a number of places. Facilitators welcome
comments in any language on the
Revisions
Guideline Talk Page. Comments can also be shared on talk pages of
translations, at local discussions, or during conversation hours.

There are planned live discussions about the UCoC enforcement draft
guidelines; please see Meta times and details:

   -

   Conversation hours
   


The facilitation team supporting this review period hopes to reach a large
number of communities. If you do not see a conversation happening in your
community, please organize a discussion. Facilitators can assist you in
setting up the conversations.

Discussions will be summarized and presented to the drafting committee
every two weeks. The summaries will be published here

.

Regards,

Stella
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YLBGGLAQ7YIU4267S3IRK6UHMOOGOBP2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines

[Stella Ng]

Hello all,

We'd like to provide an update on the work on the Enforcement Guidelines
for the Universal Code of Conduct. After the conclusion of the community
vote on the guidelines in March, the Community Affairs committee (CAC)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Affairs_Committee> of the
Board asked
that several areas of the guidelines be reviewed for improvements
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/JAYQN3NYKCHQHONMUONYTI6WRKZFQNSC/>before
the Board does its final review. These areas were identified based on
community discussions and comments provided during the vote. The CAC also
requested review of the controversial Note in 3.1 of the UCoC itself.

Once more, a big thank you to all who voted, especially to all who left
constructive feedback and comments! The project team is working with the
Board to establish a timeline for this work, and will communicate this next
month.

Members of the two prior UCoC Drafting Committees
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee>
have
generously offered their time to help shape improvements to the Guidelines.
You can read more about them and their work here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee#Revisions_Committee>,
as well as read summaries of their weekly meetings in 2022
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee/Phase_2_meeting_summaries#2022>
.

Wikimedians have provided many valuable comments together with the vote and
in other conversations. Given the size and diversity of the Wikimedia
community, there are even more voices out there who can give ideas on how
to improve the enforcement guidelines and add even more valuable ideas to
the process. To help the Revisions committee identify improvements, input
on several questions for the committee’s review is requested. Visit the
Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Revision_discussions>
, Policy text revision discussions
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/Revision_discussions>)
to get your ideas to the Committee - it is very important that viewpoints
are heard from different communities before the Committee begins drafting
revision proposals.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

Stella Ng
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6WTVCZLY22WBVSBJVDHXULOVGZCXYAC3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification

[Stella Ng]

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the
analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the
Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022,
the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes
from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German,
French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias,
and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the
Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are
written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest
numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and
Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is *published
on Meta-wiki here*
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voting/Report>.
The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help
translate to your language.

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite
everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More
information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines
can be found on Meta-wiki
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Project>
.

On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team

Stella Ng
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Z2LSWHLFUTYO7EUQHGWVRYSK2ZELO2H5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

[Stella Ng]

policies of WP.
>
> 6. https://archive.ph/NAsft
> Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
> employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
> project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
> the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
> How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
> they were to make the same report today?
> - By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
> another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with
> the wikimedia movement.
>
> A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/
> When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their
> profile on WP) in pornographic sites.
>
> I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their
> issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions.
> This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different
> cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing
> this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this
> guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel
> safe?".
> We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia
> Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.
>
> Best,
>
> Carla
>
> El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net) escribió:
>
>> When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on *what they have
>> done*, we generally don’t care what they *claim to have intended*, as
>> there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Stella Ng [mailto:s...@wikimedia.org]
>> *Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
>> *Cc:* H4CUSEG
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
>> (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
>> reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
>> he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
>> 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
>>
>>
>>
>> As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
>> of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was
>> written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It
>> trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates
>> that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
>> personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as
>> well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement
>> action.
>>
>>
>>
>> *This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For
>> instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most
>> if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
>> to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but
>> instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a
>> reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
>> environment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Stella
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
>> been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
>> *Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
>> *Cc:* H4CUSEG
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
>> (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
>>
>>
>>
>> Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
>> establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
>> to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
>> right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
>> that occurr

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

[Stella Ng]

Hello Everyone,

I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)

As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of
guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written
to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people
to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on
a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind
it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any
extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.

This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance,
guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not
all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.

We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to
engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead,
to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable
person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.

Regards,

Stella


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
> been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
>
>
>
> *From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
> *Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Cc:* H4CUSEG
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
> and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
>
>
>
> Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
> establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
> to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
> right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
> that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation
> in stead of punishing people.
>
>
>
> Vexations
>
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> secure email.
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Andreas and Todd,
>
>
>
> I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
>
>
>
> First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
> set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
> not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
> our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
> private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
> going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
> dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
> involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
> interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
>
>
>
> What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
> the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
> nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
> the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to
> intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
> reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
> The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
> harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
> tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The
> policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
> in law the “reasonable person
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22>”
> test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
> are built around human review since application of policy will always
> require judgment. The community members who review situations will
> hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
> experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
> within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
> doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
> day.
>
>
>
> However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
> round of Policy r

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

[Stella Ng]

Hello Andreas and Todd,

I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.

First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior.  However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
policies.

What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
”
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.

However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round
of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of
Phase 2.


Regards,

Stella


On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
> mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
>
> I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
> regarding both spammers and already-public information.
>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Allen
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Rosie,
>>
>> Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
>> Universal Code of Conduct:
>>
>>
>>- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
>>private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
>>address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
>>elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
>>outside the projects.
>>
>>
>> As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
>> state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
>> working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
>>
>> The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
>> activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
>> that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
>> be in breach of the code as written.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
>> rstephen...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>>> Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
>>> concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
>>> Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
>>> accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
>>> 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
>>> voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
>>> members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
>>> 77% of the comments written in English.
>>>
>>> We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
>>> members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
>>> Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
>>> people targeted by such behavior, and encourages g

[Wikimedia-l] UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Stella Ng]

Hello All,

We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians who participated in the
recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines>.
At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of
the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki.
A quick summary can be found below:


   -

   58.6% Yes, 41.4% No


   -

   Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
   -

   Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot


What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to
review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are
automatically complete.

>From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments
provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The
Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their
consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and
examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further
refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki
and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for
revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the
voter’s responses.

In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project
team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of
these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C
Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting
conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to
be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.

Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement
guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively
work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as
presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways
over the last year.

Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the
Enforcement Guidelines.

Regards,

Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team

Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B42TE3IZNGKTEPBMORULKNDVJIXM6AC7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Update

[Stella Ng]

You can find this message
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/2022-02-09_Announcement>translated
into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your
language.

Hello Everyone,

My name is Stella Ng, and I am a Senior Manager (Policy) in Trust and
Safety at the Wikimedia Foundation. I am writing with an update on the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and to address a few outstanding
questions. First let me start by thanking everyone who attended last
Friday’s Conversation Hour where the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2
Drafting committee and the Trust and Safety Policy Team provided an update
on the enforcement guidelines of the UCoC. We also had an opportunity to
respond to several questions with regards to the voting process, the
proposed enforcement guidelines, and the next steps.

As the UCoC Project Team, we realize the importance of these sessions as
they assist us to connect with you, thereby contributing to a better
understanding of the enforcement guidelines and the Universal Code of
Conduct itself. We also view these sessions as extremely important in
highlighting the upcoming voting process. Therefore, we have scheduled two
more sessions that will be held on the 25th of February 2022 at 12:00 UTC,
and on the 4th of March 2022 at 15:00 UTC, and we urge everyone who is able
to attend and dialogue with us. For more information on the upcoming
conversation sessions, please refer here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Roundtable_discussions#Conversation_Hours>
.

Similarly, over the last couple of weeks, we have received feedback,
recommendations, and questions with regards to the enforcement guidelines
of the UCoC. As a precursor to our meeting on the 25th of February 2022, I
thought that I could take this opportunity to highlight where we are at
this point.

As many of you are aware, the call for the UCoC was a recommendation
of the 2018-2020
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide_for_Safety_and_Inclusion>
to provide safety and inclusion for everyone. The UCoC policy was then
developed by a volunteer committee and underwent extensive community
consultations with dozens of revisions prior to the Board resolution that
adopted it. The UCoC guidelines should elevate good conduct on Wikimedia
projects and should empower all our communities to address harassment and
negative behavior while creating a more welcoming and inclusive environment
for contributors and readers. I agree with those who built the
recommendation that this will support an environment that will have great
potential to reduce bias and confusion, and to concentrate efforts at the
local level whenever possible.

With that context, I’ll answer some questions that have been posed here, at
the February 4th conversation hour, and on other platforms.


1. Where are we with the vote for enforcement guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
As of now, a vote to ratify the enforcement guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC) is scheduled for March 7, 2022 to March 21, 2022 via
SecurePoll. For more information on voting, please visit this page here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voter_information>
.

2. Who can vote?
All registered Wikimedia contributors who meet minimum activity requirements
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voter_information#Voting_eligibility>,
affiliate and Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors (employed prior to
17 January 2022), and current and former Wikimedia Foundation trustees will
have the opportunity to vote on the enforcement guidelines proposal in
SecurePoll.

*3. *Are staff forced or encouraged to vote in a specific way?
No, the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation and those of the affiliates are
not encouraged to vote in a specific way. We are encouraging everyone to
vote independently. For the Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines to be
effective, we need honest input to help us detect if there are areas of
needed improvement.

*4. *Will people outside the Wikimedia Foundation be involved in
scrutinizing the vote to verify authenticity?
The UCoC project team has already reached out to multiple non-staff
Wikimedians with experience with global community voting and verification
processes (including the stewards) to request their experienced help in
designing and implementing the scrutinizing of the vote. The scrutinizing
team will be announced as soon as it's finalized.

*5. I*s the Trust and Safety team biased with relation to the outcome of
the vote?
In answering this, let me start by noting that the Trust and Safety unit
has three arms: Policy, Disinformation, and Operations. The team
facilitating the UCoC is the Policy team. The Policy team is not involved
in inves