Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

If someone states that something is unclear, they very obviously intend
“unclear” to apply to their perception of it.

For example, I just used the words “very obviously.” That is my perception,
my opinion, what I gathered from the information available to me. Should I
note “it is my opinion that...” before every adjective I use?

Regardless, it would be beneficial to civil discourse if you focused on
addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you rather than
attacking them personally and the method in which they put forward their
ideas, especially when it results in such unnecessary (see, my opinion
again) semantics such as this. This also applies to your: “I hope the
moderators are considering moderation for several posters beyond Dan.”, the
message of which was fully clear and not constructive.

Best,
Verm

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 15:25 Paul J. Weiss  wrote:

> To expand on the last part of my previous post, one of the things that
> Peter and other posters are doing that is problematic in my eyes is
> phrasing their opinions as fact. It is quite clear to me why Dan was put on
> moderation. So it is a false statement to say that "this is patently
> unclear". I believe that opinion should be stated as such. When I see
> opinion being spun as fact, I am less interested in reading the rest of
> such a message, and that writer loses credibility in my eyes.
>
> Paul
>
> - Original Message -
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
> From: "Peter Southwood" 
> Date: 9/11/20 4:20 am
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
>
> In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
> text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
> apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but
> as
> it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is
> no
> official explanation.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Asaf Bartov
> Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
> intention of maintaining a list.
>
> We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
> avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
> interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.
>
> Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
> without effort.
>
> As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
> preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
> to be heard.
>
> A.
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
>
> > Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> > expressions, and how they are determined?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Anders Wennersten
> > Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
> >
> > There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> > that expression offensive and unacceptable.
> >
> > Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> > and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> > valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> > so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> > accepted as a norm)
> >
> > The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> > adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> > our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> > are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> > hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> > Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> > >
> > > Please, enlighten me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> > >> :
> > >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
> I
> > have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> > >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> > >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> > >> Kind regards
> > >> Ziko
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

Hi, 

This has just been published on the Mozilla community blog by Emma Irwin and I 
thought it could interest some of you here. 

https://blog.mozilla.org/community/2020/09/10/weaving-safety-into-the-fabric-of-open-source/

It brings insight into the experience of enforcing a code of conduct in an open 
source community.

Wikilove! 

Nattes à chat 
Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 12 sept. 2020 à 05:23, Zainan Zhou (a.k.a Victor)  a écrit :
> 
> 
> I might be wrong, but I couldn't help noticing some disagreements of whether 
> we should have a Universal CoC lies in the different mindset of how conflicts 
> should be governed, just like legal systems of Common Laws vs Civil Laws. 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l 
>>  wrote:
>> {{trigger warning : French joke included}}
>> 
>> Dear Pete, let me explain  why this is problematic.  
>> 
>> First I am sorry to say there is no hidden agenda or awful witchery plot to 
>> uncover including WMF influence. I have myself severely criticised the WMF 
>> in the course of the branding process (and was never scolded for that so I 
>> think we can express criticism). Maybe not all the time, maybe not just in 
>> any format. 
>> 
>>  I made the initial comment, and no one pushed me into.  If it has offended 
>> people, I am sorry, maybe I should in effect have reached out to Dan 
>> privately first. Dan I am sorry of the attention, your wording is being 
>> given, and I would like us to move on, as suggested by Alphos to a more 
>> constructive debate. 
>> 
>> Pete, because your are asking repeatedly for clarification and only because 
>> of that, what I have learned from my #black lives matter friends, it that s 
>> not my obligation to educate you on why this is problematic.  In fact when 
>> you ask for clarifications, you are putting pressure on people who find the 
>> use of disrespectful language a problem instead of  asking why the initial 
>> comment had to include flatulistic scenery (and this for French speakers has 
>> nothing to do with Brice de Nice’s expression « ça farte » see for reference 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18 
>> ) which blurrs the actual 
>> meaning behind the criticisml, especially for people whose language is not 
>> English in the first place. Then one could argue that it is targeting people 
>> of an institution. Full stop. 
>> 
>> I wish to  move on to why I believe spaces should be moderated, which 
>> basically would mean enforcing a code of conduct, that many members of our 
>> community have been asking for for years.
>> 
>>  « As I am a nice guy » I will give a few ressources explaining why I think 
>> lists, and wikimedia spaces should be moderated. Basically it is because you 
>> can : 
>> 
>> 1- allow free roaming speech and leaving agressive behaviours unchecked 
>> creating a space where only certain social groups are over represented but 
>> thus you can’t claim to be designing the sum of all human knowledge
>> 
>> OR 
>> 
>> 2 - design free open source inclusive spaces  that are allowing anyone to 
>> participate but you then have to moderate content because, people have 
>> different « cultures" and may not understand what offends others, there is a 
>> learning curve. 
>> 
>> Here is  a timeline of incidents 
>> https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for 
>>  
>> 
>> This time line of incidents is often cited by women as a reason for having 
>> OS code of conducts (which includes moderation of mailing lists most of the 
>> time) 
>> 
>> History tells us, that in the early internet days, the first experiments of 
>> virtual spaces encountered less harassment and more women. This is told in 
>> the following book : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band 
>> , where the story 
>> of Stacy Horn and how she actually designed the Esat Coast Hanger (ECHO) see 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn 
>>  is detailed.  Why? Because Stacy 
>> Horn moderated each chan and reached out to every member that left the 
>> community so that she would eventually know about abusive behaviours and 
>> document it. 
>> 
>> Designing a safe space does not mean you cannot address just any topic, it 
>> just means that you do so paying attention to how you treat potential 
>> readers, and contributors to create a discussion that is actually evolving 
>> around the subject, and not the format of it. 
>> 
>> A 2018 incident about wether or not a joke should be removed  
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/  
>> questions wether there is a need for a safe space or not in open source 
>> projects. I’m taking this example, because it shows how power and privilege 
>> iin a community can be used to influence « keeping a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Paul J. Weiss]

To expand on the last part of my previous post, one of the things that
Peter and other posters are doing that is problematic in my eyes is
phrasing their opinions as fact. It is quite clear to me why Dan was put on
moderation. So it is a false statement to say that "this is patently
unclear". I believe that opinion should be stated as such. When I see
opinion being spun as fact, I am less interested in reading the rest of
such a message, and that writer loses credibility in my eyes.

Paul

- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
From: "Peter Southwood" 
Date: 9/11/20 4:20 am
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 

In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but as
it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is no
official explanation.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.

We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> that expression offensive and unacceptable.
>
> Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > Please, enlighten me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> >> :
> >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Paul J. Weiss]

I for one very much appreciate that the moderators put Dan on moderation. I
support sanctions for insulting and rude behavior. Peter--if you are
looking for exact, quantitative criteria, you aren't going to get it. This
is about impact of communication on the receiver, not specific words used
by the sender. I know that I sometimes come across as being uncivil and/or
disrespectful. I appreciate when someone points out a specific example,
because that provides me an opportunity to change to more civil- and
respectful-sounding communication, which will have a better chance of
succeeding (in whatever the purpose of my communication is).

Many posters seem, like Peter, to want quantitative, legalistic, binary
"right/wrong" guidance. Considering the gender identities "man" and
"woman", this preference is more typical of men than women in "Western"
civilization. Many women (and some men) prefer more qualitative,
contextual, nuanced guidance. (I don't know prevalences for other gender
identities.) I think it is important to understand that our personal
preference is not automatically the preference of others.

Personally, I hope the moderators are considering moderation for several
posters beyond Dan.

Paul

- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
From: "Asaf Bartov" 
Date: 9/11/20 2:46 am
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 

No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.

We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> that expression offensive and unacceptable.
>
> Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > Please, enlighten me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> >> :
> >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

{{trigger warning : French joke included}}

Dear Pete, let me explain  why this is problematic.  

First I am sorry to say there is no hidden agenda or awful witchery plot to 
uncover including WMF influence. I have myself severely criticised the WMF in 
the course of the branding process (and was never scolded for that so I think 
we can express criticism). Maybe not all the time, maybe not just in any 
format. 

 I made the initial comment, and no one pushed me into.  If it has offended 
people, I am sorry, maybe I should in effect have reached out to Dan privately 
first. Dan I am sorry of the attention, your wording is being given, and I 
would like us to move on, as suggested by Alphos to a more constructive debate. 

Pete, because your are asking repeatedly for clarification and only because of 
that, what I have learned from my #black lives matter friends, it that s not my 
obligation to educate you on why this is problematic.  In fact when you ask for 
clarifications, you are putting pressure on people who find the use of 
disrespectful language a problem instead of  asking why the initial comment had 
to include flatulistic scenery (and this for French speakers has nothing to do 
with Brice de Nice’s expression « ça farte » see for reference 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18 
) which blurrs the actual meaning 
behind the criticisml, especially for people whose language is not English in 
the first place. Then one could argue that it is targeting people of an 
institution. Full stop. 

I wish to  move on to why I believe spaces should be moderated, which basically 
would mean enforcing a code of conduct, that many members of our community have 
been asking for for years.

 « As I am a nice guy » I will give a few ressources explaining why I think 
lists, and wikimedia spaces should be moderated. Basically it is because you 
can : 

1- allow free roaming speech and leaving agressive behaviours unchecked 
creating a space where only certain social groups are over represented but thus 
you can’t claim to be designing the sum of all human knowledge

OR 

2 - design free open source inclusive spaces  that are allowing anyone to 
participate but you then have to moderate content because, people have 
different « cultures" and may not understand what offends others, there is a 
learning curve. 

Here is  a timeline of incidents 
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for 
 

This time line of incidents is often cited by women as a reason for having OS 
code of conducts (which includes moderation of mailing lists most of the time) 

History tells us, that in the early internet days, the first experiments of 
virtual spaces encountered less harassment and more women. This is told in the 
following book : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band 
, where the story of 
Stacy Horn and how she actually designed the Esat Coast Hanger (ECHO) see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn 
 is detailed.  Why? Because Stacy 
Horn moderated each chan and reached out to every member that left the 
community so that she would eventually know about abusive behaviours and 
document it. 

Designing a safe space does not mean you cannot address just any topic, it just 
means that you do so paying attention to how you treat potential readers, and 
contributors to create a discussion that is actually evolving around the 
subject, and not the format of it. 

A 2018 incident about wether or not a joke should be removed  
https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/  questions 
wether there is a need for a safe space or not in open source projects. I’m 
taking this example, because it shows how power and privilege iin a community 
can be used to influence « keeping a joke that is upsetting to some ». 

So the question of « censorship » is central, but it usually has a pending side 
: who is silenced, whose voice is not being heard?  I like the way the Django 
FAQ adresses the problem of « censorship » in a community 

https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/faq/ 


Quote from the above :
This is censorship! I have the right to say whatever I want

You do -- in your space. If you'd like to hang out in our spaces (as clarified 
above), we have some simple guidelines to follow. If you want to, for example, 
form a group where Django is discussed using language inappropriate for general 
channels then nobody's stopping you. We respect your right to establish 
whatever codes of conduct you want in the spaces that belong to you. Please 
honor this Code of Conduct in our spaces.


https://web.archive.org/web/20141109123859/http://speakup.io/coc.html 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

There was no clear statement of "this is the problematic text and this is why 
it is considered unacceptable", which is a thing that I consider a reasonable 
expectation, as it is possible to learn from it, understand it, pass 
constructive criticism or agreement, and use as it a precedent for future 
expectations.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Adam Wight
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:56
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?

There were been several explanations already.  It's possible to use mild 
words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've 
always had beans for brains."  Editors are aware of this simple truth 
and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.

It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the 
WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control 
of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated.  Had my job threatened 
perhaps, but never blocked.

The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of 
creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment.  If you (speaking to 
the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, 
please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent 
argument, and present it here.  The constant attrition of "why can't I 
say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.

Kind regards,
U:Adamw


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

I would call this fair comment, and parallels can be drawn between how the UCoC 
may be used and the current discussion. Without clear statement on why a 
decision is made it cannot be properly understood, accepted or improved, and we 
end up in the usual spiral of speculation, accusation and bad feelings by all.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Benjamin Ikuta
Sent: 11 September 2020 13:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review



Thanks for the reply. 

I took a look at it and found it terribly vague. 

Depending on subjective interpretation, I can imagine it being used to justify 
whatever judgement is to be made. 

I am no more enlightened. 



> On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Alphos OGame  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> What I want to read : comments on the UCoC.
> What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative 
> or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of 
> one or more of the subscribers of this list.
> 
> I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to 
> defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or 
> current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, 
> instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what 
> seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of 
> Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
> 
> Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
> Thank you…
> 
> Roger / Alphos
> 
> 
>> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please, enlighten me.
>> 
>> Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
>> see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is
>> a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against
>> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
>> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
>> page where the main discussion is happening.
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> 
>> 
 On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
 Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
 :
> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
>>> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
 Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
 theoretically be the case, at least partially?
 Kind regards
 Ziko
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but as
it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is no
official explanation.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.

We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

   A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> that expression offensive and unacceptable.
>
> Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > Please, enlighten me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> >> :
> >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thanks for the reply. 

I took a look at it and found it terribly vague. 

Depending on subjective interpretation, I can imagine it being used to justify 
whatever judgement is to be made. 

I am no more enlightened. 



> On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Alphos OGame  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> What I want to read : comments on the UCoC.
> What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative 
> or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of 
> one or more of the subscribers of this list.
> 
> I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to 
> defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or 
> current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, 
> instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what 
> seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of 
> Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
> 
> Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
> Thank you…
> 
> Roger / Alphos
> 
> 
>> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please, enlighten me.
>> 
>> Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
>> see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is
>> a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against
>> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
>> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
>> page where the main discussion is happening.
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> 
>> 
 On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
 Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
 :
> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
>>> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
 Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
 theoretically be the case, at least partially?
 Kind regards
 Ziko
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Alphos OGame]

Hello everyone,

What I want to read : comments on the UCoC.
What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative 
or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of 
one or more of the subscribers of this list.

I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to 
defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or current 
by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, instead of 
bickering about something the list mods have already given what seems to be a 
rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of Conduct, as I still 
haven't wrapped my head around it.

Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
Thank you…

Roger / Alphos


> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> Please, enlighten me.
> 
> Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
> see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is
> a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against
> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
> page where the main discussion is happening.
> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> 
> 
>>> On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>>> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
>>> :
 Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
>> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
>>> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
>>> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
>>> Kind regards
>>> Ziko
> 
> 
> -- 
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Quim Gil]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> Please, enlighten me.
>

Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is
a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against
the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
page where the main discussion is happening.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review


>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> > :
> >>
> >> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >
> > Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> > theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko


-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Adam Wight]

Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
expressions, and how they are determined?


There were been several explanations already.  It's possible to use mild 
words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've 
always had beans for brains."  Editors are aware of this simple truth 
and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.


It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the 
WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control 
of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated.  Had my job threatened 
perhaps, but never blocked.


The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of 
creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment.  If you (speaking to 
the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, 
please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent 
argument, and present it here.  The constant attrition of "why can't I 
say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.


Kind regards,
U:Adamw


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Asaf Bartov]

No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.

We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

   A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> that expression offensive and unacceptable.
>
> Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > Please, enlighten me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> >> :
> >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
expressions, and how they are determined?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Wennersten
Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find 
that expression offensive and unacceptable.

Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures 
and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a 
valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just 
so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was 
accepted as a norm)

The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to 
adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit 
our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who 
are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too 
hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?

Anders


Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
>
> Please, enlighten me.
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
>> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
>> :
>>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
>> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
>> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

It is not yet clear that the use of the words "fart" or "flatulence" are the 
actual issue. Context matters, but we do not know the full context yet, as the 
reasons have not been explained, leaving us with little option but to 
speculate. We are experiencing a failure of communication as much, or more, 
than a failure of civility.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Todd Allen
Sent: 11 September 2020 09:14
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

Except, apparently, if someone says "fart". For godsakes, that's about the
mildest of language you could ask for. I could use far stronger about this
whole farce.

If the "UCoC" means that people can't say "fart" because someone might get
their feewings hurted, then I've very well been right to strongly oppose it.

Todd

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
> less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
> strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
> for
> > > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > > abusive behaviors in our community.
> > >
> > > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
> did
> > > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> > >
> > > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
> of
> > > conduct.
> > >
> > > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> > and
> > > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> > >
> > > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
> about
> > > « wmf flatulence ».
> > >
> > >
> > >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> > supposedly
> > > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Anders Wennersten]

There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find 
that expression offensive and unacceptable.


Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures 
and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a 
valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just 
so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was 
accepted as a norm)


The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to 
adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit 
our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who 
are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too 
hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?


Anders


Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:


Please, enlighten me.



On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:


Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
:

Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a 
deeply flawed understanding of civility?

Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
theoretically be the case, at least partially?
Kind regards
Ziko




a.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Please, enlighten me. 



On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> :
>> 
>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have 
>> a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> 
> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Todd Allen]

Except, apparently, if someone says "fart". For godsakes, that's about the
mildest of language you could ask for. I could use far stronger about this
whole farce.

If the "UCoC" means that people can't say "fart" because someone might get
their feewings hurted, then I've very well been right to strongly oppose it.

Todd

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
> less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
> strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
> for
> > > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > > abusive behaviors in our community.
> > >
> > > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
> did
> > > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> > >
> > > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
> of
> > > conduct.
> > >
> > > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> > and
> > > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> > >
> > > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
> about
> > > « wmf flatulence ».
> > >
> > >
> > >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> > supposedly
> > > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> > >
> > > It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> > > thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
> > >
> > > Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles
> and
> > > refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Nattes à chat
> > >
> > >
> > > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> > >
> > > > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Yair
> > > >
> > > > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
> the
> > > > strategy program took place. Affiliates were 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Hi Natacha,

I am not opposed to UCoC but I am afraid you have unrealistic expectations.

We do have serious behavioral problems in the big communities. One of them,
for example, is that the general tone of discussions is very aggressive and
prevents some categories of users, for example, women, from participating.
A completely different one is a proliferation of POV pushers in all
possible topics. However, UCoC will not solve these problems. It will not
solve any problems of the French Wikipedia.

The point is that big projects  had twenty years to solve behavioral
issues, and have developed an extensive system of policies and guidelines
to deal with them. In some cases, policies are missing because the
communities were not able to come up with a good solution, acceptable for
everyone, and it is very naive to think that a small dedicated group will
be able to develop something better in two months. I see that it does not
even pretend doing this, which is a good thing, but even if they were
thinking they know better than the communities such UCoC were impossible to
enforce. Another reason sometimes is that policies already exist but are
not fully enforced - and here UCoC will not help either, the projects must
look themselves and figure out why the policies are not enforced.

Where UCoC can potentially help are small projects without well-developed
conduct policies. A few year ago, a user was blocked on the Acehnese
Wikipedia for something that the admin thought is an insult to Islam (I
believe posting non-offensive images of people but I muight be wrong). On
the Chechen Wikipedia, a user was blocked for stating that Chechnya is part
of Russia. A couple of years ago, a user was blocked on the Amcharic
Wikipedia, and the admin said openly gay users are not allowed to edit
because this is contrary to Ethiopian tradition. The Croatian Wikipedia is
essentially governed by a clique blocking everybody who disagrees, and
nobody can do anything about it. These are the showcases where UCoC may be
(or even might be) instrumental, and only if one thinks very well what the
instruments could be. Not on the big projects.

Best
Yaroslav

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for
> many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> abusive behaviors in our community.
>
> On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did
> not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take action
> because it offers a frame.
>
> This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
>
> We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of
> conduct.
>
> So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions, and
> I hope the language will remain respectful.
>
> I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about
> « wmf flatulence ».
>
>
>  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are supposedly
> asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
>
> It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
>
> Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles and
> refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> >
> > Yair
> >
> > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the
> > strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
> > specifically for the strategy process, and  WMF also invited some other
> > community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what
> > topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
> the
> > WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
> program
> > went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust
> > and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary
> > to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for
> > ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but
> > every choice has been made by community members without any duress or
> > reward as to where each step lead.
> >
> > As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
> new
> > contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages
> > to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will
> be
> > unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
> person
> > is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between
> > them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand  wrote:
> >>
> >> The UCoC is obviously a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Ziko van Dijk]

Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
:
>
> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have 
> a deeply flawed understanding of civility?

Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
theoretically be the case, at least partially?
Kind regards
Ziko



>
>a.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Am I reading this correctly? 

You were moderated for calling the UCoC flatulence? 

Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a 
deeply flawed understanding of civility? 



On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the
> ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Jackie  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
>> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
>> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can
>> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
>> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
>> people working together. It was determined as a major need during
>> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
>> glad to see this moving forward.
>> 
>> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about
>> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
>> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we
>> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share
>> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take
>> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would
>> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith
>> discussion about the UCoC.
>> 
>> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
>> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC
>> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on
>> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Jackie
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Dan,
>>> 
>>> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
>> and
>>> more useful on the Draft talk page.
>>> 
>>> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
>> proceedings",
>>> you probably expected a different model where different language
>>> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
>>> UCoC.
>>> 
>>> The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and
>> if
>>> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
>>> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
>>> support the drafting committee at this stage.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Isaac
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
>>> 
 I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
>>> get a
 $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
>> opinion
>>> on
 proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
>>> is
 about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
>>> flatulence
 to itself.
 
 On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
>> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
>>> WMF
> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> 
> I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
>>> that
> looks like an "imposition"
> 
> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
>>> policy
 or
> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
 Wikimedia
> project.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Isaac
> 
> 
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
 Doubly
>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
>> arbitrarily
>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
>>> taken
> over
>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
>>> process
> when
>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
>> one.
>> 
>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
>> to
 use
>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
>> pear...@wikimedia.org
 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>> 
>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
>>> ,
>> which
 the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
>> year
>>> <
>>> 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Asaf Bartov]

Mr. Szymborski,

I understand you have very little faith in the Wikimedia Foundation, and
are upset about some past decisions and statements it has made.  As I
already wrote above, you are welcome to express that criticism so long as
you manage to remain civil, which includes avoiding vulgarity.

But I also must insist that you not hijack this thread, which is for
discussing the draft UCoC.  If you see value in bringing up your concerns
on those other matters on this list, please do so on separate threads.
Since you have expressed the opinion that this UCoC draft is illegitimate,
I suggest there is really no reason for you to post further on this thread,
leaving it for those who *would* like to discuss it.

As you have seen, we have not yet prevented any of your messages from
reaching the list, but we will, if you refuse to respect this express
expectation.

   A.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:15 PM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> Sure, WMF running roughshod over the community is something that doesn't
> happen.
>
> I must be imagining the events that led to the community open letter on
> renaming, which featured nearly a thousand individual endorsers and 72
> community affiliates.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
> And do we *really* want to go into events leading to Heilman's suspension
> from the board or Tretikov's resignation? The Fram suspension and under
> whose authority the investigation was launched? Should we talk a bit about
> the Funds Dissemination Committee?
>
> I would wager we don't, but if someone's going to suggest to me with a
> straight face that we should assume the goodness and purity of the WMF,
> then there's all this and a *lot* more to unwind. This can't be hand-waved
> away; too many people "know where the bodies are buried."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se>
> wrote:
>
> > I want to echo Jackies two mail
> >
> > The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct
> > are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like "
> > you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some
> > 10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says
> > otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into
> > detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not
> > just ToU).
> >
> > And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and
> > language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can
> > be seen as offensive to other.
> >
> > When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal
> > language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used
> > 5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather
> > blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be
> > what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be
> > welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native
> > English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used
> > too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to
> > understand what was said.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> > Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > > I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a
> Universal
> > > Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a
> clear
> > > understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your
> > use
> > > of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference
> > spelling
> > > from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
> > > correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
> > > words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an
> > organization
> > > of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment
> > is
> > > hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> > > people in the free knowledge movement.
> > >
> > > This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> > > discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people
> who
> > > *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are
> > rather
> > > homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
> > > discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive
> > and
> > > covered by a Code of Conduct.
> > >
> > > In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a
> > CoC
> > > would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The
> people
> > > reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without
> facing
> > > public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear.
> Based
> > > off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
> > > concerns and how they 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

Sure, WMF running roughshod over the community is something that doesn't
happen.

I must be imagining the events that led to the community open letter on
renaming, which featured nearly a thousand individual endorsers and 72
community affiliates.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming

And do we *really* want to go into events leading to Heilman's suspension
from the board or Tretikov's resignation? The Fram suspension and under
whose authority the investigation was launched? Should we talk a bit about
the Funds Dissemination Committee?

I would wager we don't, but if someone's going to suggest to me with a
straight face that we should assume the goodness and purity of the WMF,
then there's all this and a *lot* more to unwind. This can't be hand-waved
away; too many people "know where the bodies are buried."

Cheers,

Dan



On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> I want to echo Jackies two mail
>
> The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct
> are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like "
> you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some
> 10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says
> otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into
> detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not
> just ToU).
>
> And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and
> language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can
> be seen as offensive to other.
>
> When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal
> language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used
> 5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather
> blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be
> what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be
> welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native
> English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used
> too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to
> understand what was said.
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
> > Dan,
> >
> > I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
> > Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
> > understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your
> use
> > of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference
> spelling
> > from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
> > correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
> > words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an
> organization
> > of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment
> is
> > hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> > people in the free knowledge movement.
> >
> > This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> > discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
> > *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are
> rather
> > homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
> > discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive
> and
> > covered by a Code of Conduct.
> >
> > In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a
> CoC
> > would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
> > reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
> > public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
> > off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
> > concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
> > identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
> > and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
> > education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
> > violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their
> behavior
> > impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
> >
> > If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is
> offensive, I
> > am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I
> find
> > that text-based communication provides complications for discussions
> about
> > emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
> > upset about the result.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jackie
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
> inception.
> >> Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am absolutely flabbergasted that a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

I'm not "confused" at all. Nor do I have any willingness to be "educated"
by you. I reject your argument and I will reiterate that nothing I said
would be in violation of any UCoC in existence.

This kind of condescending talking-down-to is far more insulting than
anything I said. Perhaps you should reflect on your apparent belief that
there's a form of lèse-majesté in play for the Wikimedia Foundation.

All I have done is point out the WMF's actions over the last 18 months
which are certainly insulting to the community. You didn't have an
administrator revolt in English Wikipedia because someone made a reference
to ArbCom that referenced a malodorous moment, there was one because the
WMF and the poorly named Trust & Safety insulted and demeaned the community
repeatedly.

And for the public record, please note that I withdraw any permission for
you to send messages to my email address. After your two messages, I want
to make sure that any interaction between us is *in camera*.

Cheers,

Dan




On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:16 AM Jackie  wrote:

> Dan,
>
> I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
> Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
> understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
> of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
> from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
> correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
> words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
> of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
> hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> people in the free knowledge movement.
>
> This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
> *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
> homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
> discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
> covered by a Code of Conduct.
>
> In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
> would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
> reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
> public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
> off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
> concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
> identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
> and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
> education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
> violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
> impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
>
> If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
> am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
> that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
> emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
> upset about the result.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
> inception.
> > Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an
> organization
> > > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> > 18
> > > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are*
> considered
> > > collegial.
> > >
> > > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to
> special
> > > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> > the
> > > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> > community?
> > > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is
> also
> > > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> > things
> > > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> > >
> > > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly
> respected
> > in
> > > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who
> has
> > > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world
> that
> > > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> > wording.
> > > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's
> actions
> > > over the last 18 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

I strongly disagree. There's no "reasonable person" standard in which
anything I said would be found offensive. I'm frequently sought out by
professors as a *mentor* for journalism students and we talk about issues
such as this. I'm no shock jock.

If anything, this spell highlights one of the fundamental dangers with a
UCoC that ought to be avoided. An information community that defines
acceptable discourse by the most offended is one in which the principles
are toothless, the growth anemic. Information, by its very essence, will
offend many people. A group that comes to a screeching halt become someone
compared the *actions* of an *organization* to flatulence in mild terms is
a group that cannot but fail to be productive at any task beyond the
blandest of triviality.

I should note that I have nothing in principle against a UCoC. My main
philosophical disagreement is one being imposed, with the community that
built and energized the movement being considered an inferior partner, and
I'm using the word "partner" very optimistically. The basic reality is that
community consultations have proven over the last year to have the same
efficacy as consulting with the knife-bearer in an alley about the proper
ownership of your wallet. A fart -- or even the scandalous further
disclosure that Everybody Poops -- shouldn't derail from the basic issues
at play involving the WMF's actions and its stunning lack of comity in this
and similar situations.

I'll cut off this dreary logorrhea now, to return to pondering whether I
should be amused or bemused about the whole affair. I never thought that
the first time someone would try to wash my mouth out with soap would be
when I was 42.

Cheers,

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

For a UVoC to be helpful, it would have to be sufficiently clear  about what is 
unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable, and would itself have to be 
sufficiently clear and acceptable to be seen as fair by the communities who 
would be bound by it. This is not easy to do, and the talk page already 
illustrates how far the draft is from an acceptable state of clarity. I am not 
saying it cannot get there, but it will take more work. Possibly a lot more 
work, and it does not appear to be getting there fast.

What Anders says about the use of a simplified subset of English has value. 
Words should be used that are easily translatable, even when this may require 
more words to be used to make a point.

Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jackie
Sent: 10 September 2020 16:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

Dan,

I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
people in the free knowledge movement.

This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
*should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
covered by a Code of Conduct.

In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.

If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
upset about the result.

Best,

Jackie

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
> Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

Anders, I think you are referring to jargon. I agree that it should be avoided 
in the interests of clarity and ease of reliable translation. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anders Wennersten
Sent: 10 September 2020 16:48
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

I want to echo Jackies two mail

The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct 
are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like " 
you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some 
10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says 
otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into 
detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not 
just ToU).

And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and 
language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can 
be seen as offensive to other.

When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal 
language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used 
5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather 
blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be 
what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be 
welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native 
English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used 
too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to 
understand what was said.

Anders


Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
> Dan,
>
> I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
> Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
> understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
> of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
> from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
> correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
> words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
> of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
> hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> people in the free knowledge movement.
>
> This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
> *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
> homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
> discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
> covered by a Code of Conduct.
>
> In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
> would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
> reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
> public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
> off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
> concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
> identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
> and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
> education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
> violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
> impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
>
> If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
> am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
> that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
> emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
> upset about the result.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
>> Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
>>> to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
>>> "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
>> 18
>>> months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
>>> collegial.
>>>
>>> If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
>>> moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
>> the
>>> failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
>> community?
>>> One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
>>> someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Anders Wennersten]

I want to echo Jackies two mail

The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct 
are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like " 
you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some 
10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says 
otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into 
detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not 
just ToU).


And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and 
language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can 
be seen as offensive to other.


When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal 
language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used 
5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather 
blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be 
what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be 
welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native 
English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used 
too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to 
understand what was said.


Anders


Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:

Dan,

I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
people in the free knowledge movement.

This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
*should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
covered by a Code of Conduct.

In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.

If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
upset about the result.

Best,

Jackie

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
wrote:


Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:


I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
"collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last

18

months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
collegial.

If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing

the

failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the

community?

One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*

things

that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.

I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected

in

the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle

wording.

If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
over the last 18 months. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Jackie]

Dan,

I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
people in the free knowledge movement.

This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
*should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
covered by a Code of Conduct.

In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.

If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
upset about the result.

Best,

Jackie

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
> Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Joseph Seddon]

Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last 18
> months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> collegial.
>
> If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing the
> failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the community?
> One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual* things
> that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
>
> I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected in
> the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle wording.
> If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a free
> information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless. *I'm*
> grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say in
> what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far bigger
> than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
>
> No, I didn't mean petit.
>
> Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> vigorously is what adults are able to do.
>
> It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from being
> suppressed on dubious grounds.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for
> > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > abusive behaviors in our community.
> >
> > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did
> > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> action
> > because it offers a frame.
> >
> > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> >
> > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of
> > conduct.
> >
> > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> and
> > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> >
> > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about
> > « wmf flatulence ».
> >
> >
> >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> supposedly
> > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> >
> > It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> > thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
> >
> > Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles and
> > refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Nattes à chat
> >
> >
> > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> >
> > > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> > >
> > > Yair
> > >
> > > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the
> > > strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
> > > specifically for the strategy process, and  WMF also invited some other
> > > community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
> what
> > > topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
> > the
> > > WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
> > program
> > > went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
> Trust
> > > and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
> necessary
> > > to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
> for
> > > ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
> but
> > > every choice has been made by community members without any duress or
> > > reward as to where each step lead.
> > >
> > > As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
> > new
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

Are those things not already covered by the terms of use?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Amir Sarabadani
Sent: 10 September 2020 13:22
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

I just want to say while I agree IMO there's a growing disconnect in some
parts of WMF with the communities but it's not happening here. In fact it's
also the other way around. Some people in communities and some communities
in general have been growing too disconnected from the framework they are
working in. In the past two weeks I had to go head to head to two
communities on my volunteer developer/sysadmin role and I had to explain no
matter the consensus, you can't enable an extension that would bring down
(literally) not just your wiki but also 900 other ones or ban IP editing
which is widely considered against founding principles of Wikimedia.

Communities are self-governed but they have limits, you can't change the
privacy policy and give admins access to IP, you can't change copyright
policy or terms of use and I don't see any problem with adding one more
framework to make sure we would have a healthier movement (Each community
IMO should build on top of UCoC and won't just rely on it for conduct
policies but this would be the least, the base, the foundation, ..., you
get the idea). Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
> less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
> strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
> for
> > > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > > abusive behaviors in our community.
> > >
> > > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
> did
> > > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Amir Sarabadani]

I just want to say while I agree IMO there's a growing disconnect in some
parts of WMF with the communities but it's not happening here. In fact it's
also the other way around. Some people in communities and some communities
in general have been growing too disconnected from the framework they are
working in. In the past two weeks I had to go head to head to two
communities on my volunteer developer/sysadmin role and I had to explain no
matter the consensus, you can't enable an extension that would bring down
(literally) not just your wiki but also 900 other ones or ban IP editing
which is widely considered against founding principles of Wikimedia.

Communities are self-governed but they have limits, you can't change the
privacy policy and give admins access to IP, you can't change copyright
policy or terms of use and I don't see any problem with adding one more
framework to make sure we would have a healthier movement (Each community
IMO should build on top of UCoC and won't just rely on it for conduct
policies but this would be the least, the base, the foundation, ..., you
get the idea). Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
> less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
> strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
> for
> > > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > > abusive behaviors in our community.
> > >
> > > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
> did
> > > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> > >
> > > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
> of
> > > conduct.
> > >
> > > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> > and
> > > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> > >
> > > I believe moderators 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Asaf Bartov]

As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
acceptable.

As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
figurative language entirely.

A.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last 18
> months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> collegial.
>
> If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing the
> failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the community?
> One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual* things
> that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
>
> I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected in
> the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle wording.
> If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a free
> information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless. *I'm*
> grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say in
> what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far bigger
> than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
>
> No, I didn't mean petit.
>
> Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> vigorously is what adults are able to do.
>
> It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from being
> suppressed on dubious grounds.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for
> > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > abusive behaviors in our community.
> >
> > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did
> > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> action
> > because it offers a frame.
> >
> > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> >
> > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of
> > conduct.
> >
> > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> and
> > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> >
> > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about
> > « wmf flatulence ».
> >
> >
> >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> supposedly
> > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> >
> > It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> > thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
> >
> > Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles and
> > refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Nattes à chat
> >
> >
> > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> >
> > > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> > >
> > > Yair
> > >
> > > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the
> > > strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
> > > specifically for the strategy process, and  WMF also invited some other
> > > community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
> what
> > > topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
> > the
> > > WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
> > program
> > > went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
> Trust
> > > and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
> necessary
> > > to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
> for
> > > ideas, comments, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
"collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last 18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
collegial.

If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual* things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.

I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
*I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless. *I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.

No, I didn't mean petit.

Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
vigorously is what adults are able to do.

It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from being
suppressed on dubious grounds.

Cheers,

Dan

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for
> many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> abusive behaviors in our community.
>
> On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did
> not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take action
> because it offers a frame.
>
> This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
>
> We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of
> conduct.
>
> So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions, and
> I hope the language will remain respectful.
>
> I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about
> « wmf flatulence ».
>
>
>  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are supposedly
> asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
>
> It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
>
> Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles and
> refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> >
> > Yair
> >
> > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the
> > strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
> > specifically for the strategy process, and  WMF also invited some other
> > community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what
> > topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
> the
> > WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
> program
> > went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust
> > and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary
> > to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for
> > ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but
> > every choice has been made by community members without any duress or
> > reward as to where each step lead.
> >
> > As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
> new
> > contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages
> > to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will
> be
> > unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
> person
> > is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between
> > them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

Hello,

A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for many 
years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive 
behaviors in our community.

On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did not 
enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take action because 
it offers a frame. 

This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process. 

We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of 
conduct.

So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions, and I 
hope the language will remain respectful.

I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about « wmf 
flatulence ». 


 I dont want to read that type of language among people who are supposedly 
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias. 

It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, 
it sets an aggressive climate. 

Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles and refuse 
any such language here and on meta in these discussions? 

Kind regards, 

Nattes à chat


Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> 
> Yair
> 
> I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the
> strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
> specifically for the strategy process, and  WMF also invited some other
> community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what
> topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by the
> WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the program
> went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust
> and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary
> to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for
> ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but
> every choice has been made by community members without any duress or
> reward as to where each step lead.
> 
> As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in new
> contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages
> to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will be
> unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new person
> is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between
> them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand  wrote:
>> 
>> The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June 2019
>> by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy
>> process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF
>> appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had
>> pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with wildly-misleading
>> reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was
>> drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a process
>> set by the WMF.
>> 
>> The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against
>> having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting
>> ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board member
>> and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate
>> into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating how
>> far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing and
>> will implement policy based on community decisions.
>> 
>> That said,  I disagree with Dan's calls for nonparticipation/noncooperation
>> or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a
>> situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue
>> contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the time
>> for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the
>> Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work with
>> them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
>> 
>> -- Yair Rand
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת ‪Jackie‬‏ <‪
>> jackie.koer...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>> 
>>> Hi Dan,
>>> 
>>> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of
>> a
>>> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
>>> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I
>> can
>>> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
>>> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
>>> people working together. It was determined as a major need during
>>> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
>>> glad to see this moving forward.
>>> 
>>> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
>> about
>>> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Gnangarra]

Yair

I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
specifically for the strategy process, and  WMF also invited some other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or
reward as to where each step lead.

As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.



On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand  wrote:

> The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June 2019
> by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy
> process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF
> appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had
> pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with wildly-misleading
> reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was
> drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a process
> set by the WMF.
>
> The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against
> having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting
> ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board member
> and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate
> into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating how
> far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing and
> will implement policy based on community decisions.
>
> That said,  I disagree with Dan's calls for nonparticipation/noncooperation
> or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a
> situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue
> contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the time
> for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the
> Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work with
> them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת ‪Jackie‬‏ <‪
> jackie.koer...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of
> a
> > Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
> > WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I
> can
> > say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
> > doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
> > people working together. It was determined as a major need during
> > discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
> > glad to see this moving forward.
> >
> > I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
> about
> > the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
> > themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why
> we
> > need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
> share
> > in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take
> > you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would
> > love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith
> > discussion about the UCoC.
> >
> > Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
> > individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC
> > is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect
> on
> > people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jackie
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Dan,
> > >
> > > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
> > and
> > > more useful on the Draft talk page.
> > >
> > > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
> > proceedings",
> > > you probably expected a different model where different language
> > > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have
> a
> > > UCoC.
> > >
> > > The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Yair Rand]

The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June 2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF
appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had
pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a process
set by the WMF.

The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing and
will implement policy based on community decisions.

That said,  I disagree with Dan's calls for nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a
situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue
contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.

-- Yair Rand



‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת ‪Jackie‬‏ <‪
jackie.koer...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> Hi Dan,
>
> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can
> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
> people working together. It was determined as a major need during
> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
> glad to see this moving forward.
>
> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about
> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we
> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share
> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take
> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would
> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith
> discussion about the UCoC.
>
> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC
> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on
> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Dan,
> >
> > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
> and
> > more useful on the Draft talk page.
> >
> > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
> proceedings",
> > you probably expected a different model where different language
> > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
> > UCoC.
> >
> > The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and
> if
> > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
> > support the drafting committee at this stage.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
> > get a
> > > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
> opinion
> > on
> > > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
> > is
> > > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
> > flatulence
> > > to itself.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
> > WMF
> > > > as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> > > >
> > > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
> > that
> > > > looks like an "imposition"
> > > >
> > > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
> > policy
> > > or
> > > > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > project.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Isaac
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the
ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.

Best,

Dan

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Jackie  wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can
> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
> people working together. It was determined as a major need during
> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
> glad to see this moving forward.
>
> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about
> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we
> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share
> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take
> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would
> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith
> discussion about the UCoC.
>
> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC
> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on
> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Dan,
> >
> > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
> and
> > more useful on the Draft talk page.
> >
> > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
> proceedings",
> > you probably expected a different model where different language
> > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
> > UCoC.
> >
> > The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and
> if
> > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
> > support the drafting committee at this stage.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
> > get a
> > > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
> opinion
> > on
> > > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
> > is
> > > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
> > flatulence
> > > to itself.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
> > WMF
> > > > as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> > > >
> > > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
> > that
> > > > looks like an "imposition"
> > > >
> > > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
> > policy
> > > or
> > > > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > project.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Isaac
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > > > > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
> > > Doubly
> > > > > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
> arbitrarily
> > > > > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > > > > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
> > taken
> > > > over
> > > > > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
> > process
> > > > when
> > > > > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
> one.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
> to
> > > use
> > > > > every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > > > > ,
> which
> > > the
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
> year
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Jackie]

Hi Dan,

I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during
discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
glad to see this moving forward.

I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.

Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.

Best,

Jackie

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Hello Dan,
>
> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and
> more useful on the Draft talk page.
>
> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings",
> you probably expected a different model where different language
> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
> UCoC.
>
> The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and if
> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
> support the drafting committee at this stage.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
>
> > I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
> get a
> > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion
> on
> > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
> is
> > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
> flatulence
> > to itself.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
> WMF
> > > as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> > >
> > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
> that
> > > looks like an "imposition"
> > >
> > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
> policy
> > or
> > > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
> > Wikimedia
> > > project.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Isaac
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > > > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
> > Doubly
> > > > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
> > > > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > > > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
> taken
> > > over
> > > > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
> process
> > > when
> > > > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
> > > >
> > > > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to
> > use
> > > > every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > > > , which
> > the
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > > > >,
> > > > > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
> > October
> > > > 6,
> > > > > 2020.
> > > > >
> > > > > The UCoC Drafting Committee
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> > > > > >wants
> > > > > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you
> or
> > > > your
> > > > > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > improved?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Many thanks to the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not like the text. You first state a  problem that the policy is to
address. By flipping the order it becomes instantly more positive. The
objective is to instill the notion what normal behaviour is and that sadly
we have to insist on normal behaviour.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 22:18, Patrick Earley  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> , which the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >,
> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6,
> 2020.
>
> The UCoC Drafting Committee
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >wants
> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your
> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be
> improved?
>
>
> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations
> so far.
>
>
> Please join the conversation
> 
> and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
>
> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> page
> , and the FAQ
> , on Meta.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Samuel Klein]

Dear anonymus,

The problem starts when the administrators who are called to
> perform those rules are the harrashers themselves and don' t get punished.
>

A code of conduct should preempt this.


> For example [users who can] fly under the rader and be likeable.

[users who] run the annual contests in wikipedia or doing other wikimedia
> jobs...

is the code of contact going to apply as well?


Yes.  That is the point.

S
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής]

Some thoughts over the matter:
Wikipedia has already rules about how the users should  interact and the
"penalties" that all users would endure equally if they wouldn 't apply to
them. If you are a volunteer/user the things are simple. You get blocked
and that is that. Imagine being a newbie then sadly, things are even more
simple. The problem starts when the administrators who are called to
perform those rules are the harrashers themselves and don' t get punished.
For example old users with multiple interactions with WMF such as grants,
being in user groups/chapters with funding, grantees of trips in
conferences annualy and having created a net of protection of
users/administrators around them over the years, because they know the
tricks to fly under the rader and be likeable. People as such, who see
their interaction with wikipedia more as a profortable and prestigious job,
and are "vauliable" to wmf because they run the annual contests in
wikipedia or doing other wikimedia jobs beneficiary to the foundation but
not wikipedia, is the code of contact going to apply as well? Simple rules
don't. And who will execute it?  I believe that the code of conduct is an
attempt, for the wmf to be politically correct in the eyes of the world and
the communities that something is going to change to the better in
wikipedia. I  believe that the code of conduct will not solve any problems
because that is not why it's being made for. Participating to the
discussion just legalize wmf behaviour to not  encounter all user equally
and "putting under the rag" serious harrasment cases by users just because
they get the job done.

But the truth of the matter is that WMF only regards us as equals when
needs us to support it.


Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής

Στις Τετ, 9 Σεπ 2020, 4:22 π.μ. ο χρήστης Dan Szymborski <
dszymbor...@gmail.com> έγραψε:

> There was meant to be a " " there, but my phone rudely stripped it.
>
> If it does it again, I'll make up a rule and suspend it for a year. It's
> what the WMF would want, I'm sure.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:45 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the
> > community
> > > board elections
> > [...]
> >
> > They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide
> > whether to accept them.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

There was meant to be a " " there, but my phone rudely stripped it.

If it does it again, I'll make up a rule and suspend it for a year. It's
what the WMF would want, I'm sure.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:45 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski  wrote:
>
> > The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the
> community
> > board elections
> [...]
>
> They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide
> whether to accept them.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks Patrick + all.  It looks like most discussion is happening on Meta,
which seems fitting.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> , which the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >,
> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6,
> 2020.
>
> The UCoC Drafting Committee
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >wants
> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your
> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be
> improved?
>
>
> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations
> so far.
>
>
> Please join the conversation
> 
> and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
>
> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> page
> , and the FAQ
> , on Meta.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Gnangarra]

UCoC is pointless if their systems of enforcement are themselves biased or
weighted in any way to those who are known to the community.  The large
communities already have policies, the problem in those communities is the
unwillingness and inability of the process to be enforced equally on those
who have deeply established connections within the community.  It gets more
complicated when the nuances of local cultural use of language runs into
the linguistic, cultural, and, or second language generic teachings of the
language.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 03:44, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski  wrote:
>
> > The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the
> community
> > board elections
> [...]
>
> They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide
> whether to accept them.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>


-- 
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community
> board elections
[...]

They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide
whether to accept them.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

Yeah, we've seen from the branding fiasco just how much the imperial
overlords deign to respect the opinions of the peasants.

The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community
board elections, have been scuttled for Very Convenient Reasons.

The model is terribly broken and nobody should provide any support,
financial or otherwise, to the WMF in its current incarnation.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Hello Dan,
>
> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and
> more useful on the Draft talk page.
>
> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings",
> you probably expected a different model where different language
> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
> UCoC.
>
> The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and if
> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
> support the drafting committee at this stage.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
>
> > I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
> get a
> > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion
> on
> > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
> is
> > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
> flatulence
> > to itself.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
> WMF
> > > as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> > >
> > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
> that
> > > looks like an "imposition"
> > >
> > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
> policy
> > or
> > > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
> > Wikimedia
> > > project.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Isaac
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > > > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
> > Doubly
> > > > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
> > > > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > > > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
> taken
> > > over
> > > > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
> process
> > > when
> > > > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
> > > >
> > > > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to
> > use
> > > > every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > > > , which
> > the
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > > > >,
> > > > > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
> > October
> > > > 6,
> > > > > 2020.
> > > > >
> > > > > The UCoC Drafting Committee
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> > > > > >wants
> > > > > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you
> or
> > > > your
> > > > > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > improved?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
> > > > translations
> > > > > so far.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please join the conversation
> > > > > <
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> >
> > > > > and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
> too.
> > > > >
> > > > > To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
> > Conduct
> > > > > page
> > > > > , and
> the
> > > FAQ
> > > > > ,
> on
> > > > Meta.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
> > > > >
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > > >
> > > > > [3]
> > > >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Isaac Olatunde]

Hello Dan,

You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and
more useful on the Draft talk page.

That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language
Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
UCoC.

The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
support the drafting committee at this stage.

Regards

Isaac

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:

> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to get a
> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion on
> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings is
> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence
> to itself.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF
> > as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> >
> > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that
> > looks like an "imposition"
> >
> > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy
> or
> > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
> Wikimedia
> > project.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
> >
> > > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
> Doubly
> > > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
> > > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken
> > over
> > > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process
> > when
> > > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
> > >
> > > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to
> use
> > > every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > >
> > > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > > , which
> the
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > > >,
> > > > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
> October
> > > 6,
> > > > 2020.
> > > >
> > > > The UCoC Drafting Committee
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> > > > >wants
> > > > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or
> > > your
> > > > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
> could
> > > be
> > > > improved?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
> > > translations
> > > > so far.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please join the conversation
> > > > <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review>
> > > > and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
> > > >
> > > > To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
> Conduct
> > > > page
> > > > , and the
> > FAQ
> > > > , on
> > > Meta.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > >
> > > > [3]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> > > > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Patrick Earley
> > > > Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > pear...@wikimedia.org
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence
to itself.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF
> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
>
> I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that
> looks like an "imposition"
>
> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy or
> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia
> project.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
>
> > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
> > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
> > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken
> over
> > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process
> when
> > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
> >
> > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use
> > every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > , which the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > >,
> > > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October
> > 6,
> > > 2020.
> > >
> > > The UCoC Drafting Committee
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> > > >wants
> > > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or
> > your
> > > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could
> > be
> > > improved?
> > >
> > >
> > > Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
> > translations
> > > so far.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please join the conversation
> > > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review>
> > > and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
> > >
> > > To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > page
> > > , and the
> FAQ
> > > , on
> > Meta.
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
> > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > >
> > > [3]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> > > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> > >
> > > --
> > > Patrick Earley
> > > Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > pear...@wikimedia.org
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Isaac Olatunde]

On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.

I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that
looks like an "imposition"

The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia
project.

Regards

Isaac


On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:

> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken over
> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process when
> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
>
> The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use
> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > , which the
> > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > >,
> > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October
> 6,
> > 2020.
> >
> > The UCoC Drafting Committee
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> > >wants
> > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or
> your
> > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could
> be
> > improved?
> >
> >
> > Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
> translations
> > so far.
> >
> >
> > Please join the conversation
> > 
> > and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
> >
> > To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> > page
> > , and the FAQ
> > , on
> Meta.
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
> >
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >
> > [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Earley
> > Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > pear...@wikimedia.org
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.

The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> , which the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >,
> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6,
> 2020.
>
> The UCoC Drafting Committee
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >wants
> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your
> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be
> improved?
>
>
> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations
> so far.
>
>
> Please join the conversation
> 
> and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
>
> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> page
> , and the FAQ
> , on Meta.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,