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

[FlyingEagle 95]

Gnangarra:

I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my comment. Did you reply to the 
wrong person?

> The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in
ucoc outcomes

What do you mean when you say, "legal rights of individuals to disappear"?

What do national laws have to do with the UCOC? Laws affect countries, and UCOC 
affects Wikimedia projects.

> The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations

Translators exist.

As for the other issues, that doesn't mean there should be no UCOC at all. 
Without the UCOC, some people might not even have a case to make. Every 
complaint you have about UCOC cases can also be applied to cases at the local 
project level.

> The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community

I think you mean "with", not without. Why would we want to ensure that 
decisions are made *without* support or equal rights?

Are you implying that the UCOC and U4C shouldn't exist because it *might be* 
hard to make widely-supported and non-harmful decisions while giving all 
parties (in a case) equal rights? If so, that's not convincing. The U4C 
wouldn't have a good reason to take away someone's due process rights or make 
bad decisions. Abuse of power or bad decisions would risk them getting voted 
out of office.



Gnangarra wrote:
> I'm concerned on a few points;
> 
> The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
> vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in
> ucoc outcomes
> 
> The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
> language, experience, and community support or reputations
> 
> The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
> supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm , flyingeagle95(a)outlook.com wrote:
> 
> >   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/Wi…).
> >  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)
> >  
> > 

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

[Gnangarra]

I'm concerned on a few points;

The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in
ucoc outcomes

The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations

The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community




On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm ,  wrote:

> 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 o

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

[flyingeagle95]

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

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

wn investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they
>> should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going
>> investigation.
>>
>> 4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale
>> In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as
>> well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning
>> other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
>> employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
>> point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
>> participants will be held to.
>> -Same as 3.
>>
>> 5.
>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted
>> In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
>> journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
>> Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
>> (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
>> harassment?
>> - Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
>> multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article).
>> The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the 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.
>>>
>>>
>>&g

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

[Maggie Dennis]

;> - Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
>>> not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
>>> with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
>>> say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
>>> fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
>>> disclousure of the information.
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/
>>> This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
>>> change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
>>> course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
>>> contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
>>> Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
>>> Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
>>> article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
>>> - They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They
>>> weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about
>>> their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they
>>> should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going
>>> investigation.
>>>
>>> 4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale
>>> In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as
>>> well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning
>>> other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
>>> employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
>>> point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
>>> participants will be held to.
>>> -Same as 3.
>>>
>>> 5.
>>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted
>>> In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
>>> journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
>>> Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
>>> (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
>>> harassment?
>>> - Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
>>> multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article).
>>> The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the 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 NOTH

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

[Lane Chance]

imedia activity outside the projects", including
>> employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
>> point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
>> participants will be held to.
>> -Same as 3.
>>
>> 5.
>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted
>> In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
>> journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
>> Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
>> (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
>> harassment?
>> - Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
>> multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article).
>> The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the 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 com

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

[Stella Ng]

ive.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 occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and re

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

[Carla Toro]

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 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
>

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

[Peter Southwood]

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  
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=(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 t

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Stella,

Thanks for your reply. It is much appreciated that you take the time. Now,
you point out that the UCoC is meant to establish a "minimum" set of
guidelines. "Minimum" means that anything forbidden or demanded in the UCoC
is forbidden or demanded globally, but that individual projects might
forbid or demand more. That what "minimum" means, right?

Now, the phrasing of all these items in section 3.1 is always the same. The
section describes what harassment "*includes*". It begins, "Harassment.
This *includes *..." Then, it introduces the bullet points with the
examples by saying, "Harassment *includes *but is not limited to ..."

So the way it is written, the intro does not qualify the bullet points.
Both the intro and the bullet points merely say what harassment "includes".
They are parallel. The intro, as written, does not say that the examples in
the bullet points only qualify as harassment IF certain conditions are met.

Another thing to think about here are the reputational risks inherent in
formulating authoritarian laws that are then applied selectively – it opens
the movement up to charges of hypocrisy. This is also a staple of
authoritarian states: have laws under which most everyone is guilty of
*something*, and you can find a reason to punish anyone whenever the need
arises.

But let's leave the theory and take some practical examples. They are all
related to this bullet UCoC point, which says harassment includes:


   - *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.


Could you please comment on these below?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their
consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above
bullet point. Should this page exist?

2.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wikipedia-edit
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?

3.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?

4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well
as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other
contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.

5.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?

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?

If you could look at these examples and come back to me, that would be much
appreciated.

Best,
Andreas







On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:02 AM 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 

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

[H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l]

Actually,

In response tp a question asked a6 35:56 in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cd2FxovdXE at

"Some have voiced concerns that the UCoC requires thinking around consent. How 
are communities expected to engage with that?"

Jan Eissfeld said: (35:08)

"The UCoC, this is probably a useful way to think about it, has been designed 
as a minimum standard for expected behaviour as well as to help identify 
unwanted behaviour.

Now, the foundation and the communities have always agreed and the foundation 
has always trusted in the communities being able to exercise a reasonable 
person standard, so community members who adjudicate concerns or bring concerns 
to the attention of the community have always exercised the ability to look at 
the intent and look at the context to the best of their abilities and then find 
reasonable solutions.

I would think about this issue in a comparable manner. And this is also a 
long-established practice, if you think about two examples: For example, 26 
communities already have rules in place, or guidelines, at least, in place 
related to not gaming the system of self governance. That very heavily depends 
on both the intent and the context. And in general, communities have done an 
excellent job enforcing that on their own. Equally, the blocking reason for not 
being here in order to contribute to the encyclopedia is one of the oldest, and 
most widely used blocking reasons on many Wikipedia language versions. Which 
very specifically is a question of intent. So the communities are very, very 
good at handling that.

We certainly do not believe that the community drafting committee for phase 1 
assumed a different standard than the reasonable person standard that has 
always been used across the movement, I think very successfully. So if you 
think about consent in that context, this strikes me a as a reasonable way to 
think about it."

He almost makes it sound as if the communities were doing very, very well 
without the UCoC. Funny that.

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.

--- Original Message ---
On Monday, April 25th, 2022 at 11:38 AM, Stella Ng  wrote:

> 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 
>  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.
>>
>>

[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=(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 

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

[Peter Southwood]

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=(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  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 
 wrote:

Hello,

 

The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 
would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded 
communi

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

[Peter Southwood]

This question has been asked before, and I have never seen a reasonably 
practicable proposal for managing the problem. 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=(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  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 
 wrote:

Hello,

 

The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 
would like to thank everyone who participated in 

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

[H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l]

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=(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  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 
>>>  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)](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines).

 The volunteer 

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

[The Cunctator]

Respectfully, the inclusion of the second part does not seem to make much
sense.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 8:02 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
> ”
> 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.

[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 good 

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

[Todd Allen]

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 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 

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 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
>
> *Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
>
> Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
>
> Wikimedia Foundation  Board of Trustees
>
>
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>