Peter Southwood: Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about "gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220430213703/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia). The intro paragraph states, "Because Wikipedia is a collaborative community, editors whose *personal agendas* and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed." The last paragraph of section 4 states, "Being 'here to build an encyclopedia' is about a user's overall *purpose* and behavior in editing Wikipedia." Those are statements about the intent of some editors. Without intent, there can be no personal agenda or purpose. Therefore, WP:NOTHERE is either the lack of intent to build an encyclopedia or the intent not to build an encyclopedia. When you block someone for WP:NOTHERE, you are, in fact, doing so because of their intent or lack thereof. You may use their actions as evidence that the block is appropriate, but that's different from not blocking them because of their intent. Sincerely, FlyingEagle95 PS: I chose that snapshot because it was made shortly after your comment. Peter Southwood wrote: > 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.southwood(a)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 > <sng(a)wikimedia.org> 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 > 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 <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> > 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 <jayen466(a)gmail.com> > 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 > <rstephenson(a)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 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines> > 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 good > faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects. > > > > Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The > Enforcement > Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to > review. However, we > encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on > the elements > of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes > were needed > and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would > address community > concerns. > > > > Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the > emerging themes. > As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the > Foundation to > reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake > another community > engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community > feedback received > from the recently concluded vote. > > > > For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows: > > > > 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 conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the > right to be > heard. > > > > Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft > Enforcement > Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for > voters. Therefore, > we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the > further > engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the > redrafted > Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official > ratification. > > > > Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of > Conduct > Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the > Code to > ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and > inclusive > community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the > end of the > year. > > > > Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking > about these > complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together > well across > the movement. > > > > Best, > > Rosie > > > > <https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yBcvUBz7x7xW_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5ipBVl-TBu9JIdHdySi6iZA1UTcm3AzWcx8bfkDvjMaftQqxtKRkjORZgmQ53i7g9bVQ6rEy7NhGdz4mZ6AcTe2tIAyMD9wH> > > > Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her) > > Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee > > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > Virus-free. > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > www.avg.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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/54GIHEZMLOJUM35RQXDZLSEDQPDFPF6R/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
