Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (U

Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org
Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
: Next unread message
: Previous unread message
j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
List overview
All Threads
newer
Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
older
Celebrating Meenakshi nandhini!
Wikimania 2023 will be held at….
First Post
Replies
Stats
Threads by
month
----- 2026 -----
April
March
February
January
----- 2025 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2024 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2023 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2022 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2021 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2020 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2019 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2018 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2017 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2016 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2015 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2014 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2013 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2012 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2011 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2010 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2009 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2008 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2007 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2006 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2005 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2004 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
15 Apr

2022
15 Apr

'22
4:07 p.m.
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1.
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the
right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees
Attachments:
attachment.htm
(text/html — 14.0 KB)
Show replies by date
Andreas Kolbe
15 Apr
15 Apr
6:01 p.m.
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the
right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Todd Allen
16 Apr
16 Apr
6 a.m.
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the
right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Stella Ng
19 Apr
19 Apr
6:24 p.m.
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round
of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of
Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the
right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to
review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended
purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for
the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better
approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of
Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
The Cunctator
20 Apr
20 Apr
12:03 p.m.
Respectfully, the inclusion of the second part does not seem to make much
sense.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 8:02 PM Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment,
physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the
Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their
Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on
Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would
already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments
received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support
necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters,
regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of
the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes
were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits
that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to
review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended
purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for
the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better
approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of
Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
H4CUSEG
5:43 p.m.
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with [ProtonMail](
) secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “[reasonable person](
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
rstephenson@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the[Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)](
).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
[Wikimedia Foundation](
) Board of Trustees
[foundationsite:](
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Peter Southwood
25 Apr
25 Apr
7:32 a.m.
This question has been asked before, and I have never seen a reasonably practicable proposal for managing the problem. Cheers, Peter
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person
” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
rstephenson@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the
Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
attachment
attachment.htm
Peter Southwood
9:13 a.m.
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person
” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
rstephenson@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the
Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
attachment
attachment.htm
Stella Ng
3:38 p.m.
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of
guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written
to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people
to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on
a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind
it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any
extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance,
guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not
all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to
engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead,
to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable
person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
...
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation
in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
H4CUSEG
7:26 p.m.
Actually,
In response tp a question asked a6 35:56 in
at
"Some have voiced concerns that the UCoC requires thinking around consent. How are communities expected to engage with that?"
Jan Eissfeld said: (35:08)
"The UCoC, this is probably a useful way to think about it, has been designed as a minimum standard for expected behaviour as well as to help identify unwanted behaviour.
Now, the foundation and the communities have always agreed and the foundation has always trusted in the communities being able to exercise a reasonable person standard, so community members who adjudicate concerns or bring concerns to the attention of the community have always exercised the ability to look at the intent and look at the context to the best of their abilities and then find reasonable solutions.
I would think about this issue in a comparable manner. And this is also a long-established practice, if you think about two examples: For example, 26 communities already have rules in place, or guidelines, at least, in place related to not gaming the system of self governance. That very heavily depends on both the intent and the context. And in general, communities have done an excellent job enforcing that on their own. Equally, the blocking reason for not being here in order to contribute to the encyclopedia is one of the oldest, and most widely used blocking reasons on many Wikipedia language versions. Which very specifically is a question of intent. So the communities are very, very good at handling that.
We certainly do not believe that the community drafting committee for phase 1 assumed a different standard than the reasonable person standard that has always been used across the movement, I think very successfully. So if you think about consent in that context, this strikes me a as a reasonable way to think about it."
He almost makes it sound as if the communities were doing very, very well without the UCoC. Funny that.
Sent with [ProtonMail](
) secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, April 25th, 2022 at 11:38 AM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
...
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
[]
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with [ProtonMail](
) secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “[reasonable person](
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
·Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
rstephenson@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the[Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)](
).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1.To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2.To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3.To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
[Wikimedia Foundation](
) Board of Trustees
[foundationsite:](
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. [www.avg.com](
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Peter Southwood
26 Apr
26 Apr
7:58 a.m.
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on what they have done, we generally don’t care what they claim to have intended, as there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
From: Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person
” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
rstephenson@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the
Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Carla Toro
4:43 p.m.
Hi everyone,
I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under
the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being
the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with the
clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the examples
given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.
1.
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their
consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above
bullet point. Should this page exist?
- This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the
government.
2.
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?
- Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
disclousure of the information.
3.
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
- They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They weren't
sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own
investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be
sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.
4.
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well
as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other
contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.
-Same as 3.
5.
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?
- Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed multiple
living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The
Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
6.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
they were to make the same report today?
- By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with
the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their
profile on WP) in pornographic sites.
I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their
issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions.
This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different
cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing
this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this
guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel
safe?".
We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia
Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.
Best,
Carla
El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:
...
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on *what they have done*,
we generally don’t care what they *claim to have intended*, as there is
no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
*From:* Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was
written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It
trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates
that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as
well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement
action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For
instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most
if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to
engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead,
to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable
person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation
in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Stella Ng
2 May
2 May
4:43 p.m.
Hello Everyone,
Speaking as the senior manager of the team whose role it was to support the
UCoC drafters: we should remember that high level, section 3 of the UCoC
(Unacceptable Behavior) is meant to address bad behavior. When writing
this, the drafting committee was thinking specifically of the potential of
harm, such as physical or reputational as well the context and intent
behind the behavior.
It is also worth noting that currently, ENWP has rules regarding private
information and doxxing that go into more detail than the UCoC Phase 1 text
).
The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and
negative) to help communities build upon.
As noted previously, there will be a review of not only the UCoC but the
Enforcement Guidelines one year after ratification is completed. During
that period, feedback, as well as examples will be worked through to ensure
that both texts are fit for purpose and lessen any ambiguity folks may be
having issues with.
Thanks!
Stella
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Carla Toro
carla.toro@wikimedia.cl
wrote:
...
Hi everyone,
I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under
the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being
the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with
the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the
examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their
consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above
bullet point. Should this page exist?
This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the
government.
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?
Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
disclousure of the information.
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They weren't
sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own
investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be
sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well
as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other
contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.
-Same as 3.
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?
Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article).
The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
they were to make the same report today?
By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with
the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their
profile on WP) in pornographic sites.
I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their
issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions.
This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different
cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing
this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this
guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel
safe?".
We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia
Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.
Best,
Carla
El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:
...
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on *what they have
done*, we generally don’t care what they *claim to have intended*, as
there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
*From:* Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was
written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It
trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates
that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as
well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement
action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For
instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most
if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but
instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a
reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation
in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment,
physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the
Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their
Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and
cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Lane Chance
3 May
3 May
10:25 a.m.
Hi, from the statements so far, there seems no planned date for
implementation. By this I mean a date from which an affected volunteer can
raise a complaint.
Given the extended redrafting, "conversations" and having another vote, is
it fair to estimate that the earliest for UCoC cases would be sometime in
2023, probably more than 12 months from now?
In practice would this also mean that people affected by unacceptable
behaviour in 2021 and probably throughout 2022 should give up on any plan
they may have to lodge a UCoC case?
Lane
On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 17:44, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello Everyone,
Speaking as the senior manager of the team whose role it was to support
the UCoC drafters: we should remember that high level, section 3 of the
UCoC (Unacceptable Behavior) is meant to address bad behavior. When
writing this, the drafting committee was thinking specifically of the
potential of harm, such as physical or reputational as well the context and
intent behind the behavior.
It is also worth noting that currently, ENWP has rules regarding private
information and doxxing that go into more detail than the UCoC Phase 1 text
).
The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and
negative) to help communities build upon.
As noted previously, there will be a review of not only the UCoC but the
Enforcement Guidelines one year after ratification is completed. During
that period, feedback, as well as examples will be worked through to ensure
that both texts are fit for purpose and lessen any ambiguity folks may be
having issues with.
Thanks!
Stella
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Carla Toro
carla.toro@wikimedia.cl
wrote:
...
Hi everyone,
I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under
the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being
the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with
the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the
examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without
their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the
above bullet point. Should this page exist?
This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the
government.
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?
Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
disclousure of the information.
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They
weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about
their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they
should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going
investigation.
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as
well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning
other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.
-Same as 3.
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?
Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article).
The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
they were to make the same report today?
By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with
the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their
profile on WP) in pornographic sites.
I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their
issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions.
This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different
cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing
this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this
guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel
safe?".
We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia
Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.
Best,
Carla
El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:
...
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on *what they have
done*, we generally don’t care what they *claim to have intended*, as
there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
*From:* Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was
written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It
trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates
that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as
well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement
action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For
instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most
if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but
instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a
reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation
in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a
minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However,
it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently,
communities in our global movement may have different policies around the
disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into
context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and
political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the
individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your
examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however,
is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing
is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that
if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily*
to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment,
physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the
Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their
Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on
Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would
already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and
cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to
review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended
purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for
the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better
approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of
Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Maggie Dennis
4:44 p.m.
Hello, Lane.
The Enforcement Guidelines discussion is being extended, but the Universal
Code of Conduct
is
already policy, active on Wikimedia projects under the Terms of Use via
provision 11
The Enforcement Guidelines are intended to provide a more universal
framework of enforcement, but individual projects are already enforcing the
code locally, and the Foundation has been acting under its provisions in
its own investigations since its ratification.
In terms of how people affected by unacceptable behavior should approach
it, many communities already have protocols for handling behavioral issues,
with local functionaries and administrators helping to enforce those. Where
those do not exist, there are some global systems
and, where
those may not be appropriate, the Foundation’s office actions
may provide necessary
support.
I do apologize if I’m explaining some things you already know; I am also
thinking about what others in this channel may or may not be aware of. :)
There will be a timeline update for the next phase of the project very
soon. The teams are in the final stages of preparing a proposal for the
Board.
Best,
Maggie
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:26 AM Lane Chance
zinkloss@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Hi, from the statements so far, there seems no planned date for
implementation. By this I mean a date from which an affected volunteer can
raise a complaint.
Given the extended redrafting, "conversations" and having another vote, is
it fair to estimate that the earliest for UCoC cases would be sometime in
2023, probably more than 12 months from now?
In practice would this also mean that people affected by unacceptable
behaviour in 2021 and probably throughout 2022 should give up on any plan
they may have to lodge a UCoC case?
Lane
On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 17:44, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello Everyone,
Speaking as the senior manager of the team whose role it was to support
the UCoC drafters: we should remember that high level, section 3 of the
UCoC (Unacceptable Behavior) is meant to address bad behavior. When
writing this, the drafting committee was thinking specifically of the
potential of harm, such as physical or reputational as well the context and
intent behind the behavior.
It is also worth noting that currently, ENWP has rules regarding private
information and doxxing that go into more detail than the UCoC Phase 1 text
).
The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and
negative) to help communities build upon.
As noted previously, there will be a review of not only the UCoC but the
Enforcement Guidelines one year after ratification is completed. During
that period, feedback, as well as examples will be worked through to ensure
that both texts are fit for purpose and lessen any ambiguity folks may be
having issues with.
Thanks!
Stella
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Carla Toro
carla.toro@wikimedia.cl
wrote:
...
Hi everyone,
I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is
under the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of
being the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with
the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the
examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without
their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the
above bullet point. Should this page exist?
This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the
government.
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?
Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
disclousure of the information.
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They
weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about
their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they
should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going
investigation.
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as
well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning
other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.
-Same as 3.
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?
Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article).
The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
they were to make the same report today?
By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone
reporting another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not
go with the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their
profile on WP) in pornographic sites.
I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their
issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions.
This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different
cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing
this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this
guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel
safe?".
We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the
Wikimedia Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.
Best,
Carla
El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:
...
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on *what they have
done*, we generally don’t care what they *claim to have intended*, as
there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
*From:* Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was
written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It
trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates
that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as
well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement
action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For
instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most
if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but
instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a
reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed
to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest
things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to
get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual
harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and
rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a
minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However,
it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently,
communities in our global movement may have different policies around the
disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into
context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and
political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the
individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your
examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however,
is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing
is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that
if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily*
to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added)
The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often
called in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since
the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment,
physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the
Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their
Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no
longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears
to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on
Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would
already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments
received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support
necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters,
regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of
the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes
were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits
that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and
cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to
review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended
purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for
the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better
approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of
Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
4:45 p.m.
Hi Stella,
You say, "It is also worth noting that currently, ENWP has rules regarding
private information and doxxing that go into more detail than the UCoC
Phase 1 text (
).
The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and
negative) to help communities build upon."
The problem is that as far as I can see, English Wikipedia policies and
guidelines do not meet the "minimum" standard asked for by the UCoC.
English Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow things the UCoC forbids,
and do not demand things asked for by the UCoC. To my mind it is now
entirely unclear whether or not people can, or will be able to do an end
run around English Wikipedia policies and guidelines by applying for UCoC
rulings where no English Wikipedia policy or guideline would apply, and
whether or not the UCoC is intended to overrule English Wikipedia policies
and guidlines.
Andreas
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 5:44 PM Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello Everyone,
Speaking as the senior manager of the team whose role it was to support
the UCoC drafters: we should remember that high level, section 3 of the
UCoC (Unacceptable Behavior) is meant to address bad behavior. When
writing this, the drafting committee was thinking specifically of the
potential of harm, such as physical or reputational as well the context and
intent behind the behavior.
It is also worth noting that currently, ENWP has rules regarding private
information and doxxing that go into more detail than the UCoC Phase 1 text
).
The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and
negative) to help communities build upon.
As noted previously, there will be a review of not only the UCoC but the
Enforcement Guidelines one year after ratification is completed. During
that period, feedback, as well as examples will be worked through to ensure
that both texts are fit for purpose and lessen any ambiguity folks may be
having issues with.
Thanks!
Stella
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Carla Toro
carla.toro@wikimedia.cl
wrote:
...
Hi everyone,
I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under
the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being
the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with
the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the
examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without
their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the
above bullet point. Should this page exist?
This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the
government.
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?
Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
disclousure of the information.
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They
weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about
their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they
should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going
investigation.
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as
well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning
other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.
-Same as 3.
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?
Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article).
The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
they were to make the same report today?
By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with
the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their
profile on WP) in pornographic sites.
I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their
issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions.
This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different
cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing
this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this
guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel
safe?".
We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia
Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.
Best,
Carla
El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:
...
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on *what they have
done*, we generally don’t care what they *claim to have intended*, as
there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
*From:* Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was
written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It
trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates
that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as
well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement
action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For
instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most
if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but
instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a
reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation
in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a
minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However,
it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently,
communities in our global movement may have different policies around the
disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into
context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and
political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the
individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your
examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however,
is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing
is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that
if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily*
to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment,
physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the
Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their
Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on
Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would
already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and
cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to
review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended
purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for
the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better
approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of
Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
flyingeagle95＠outlook.com
25 Apr
25 Apr
7:14 a.m.
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about "gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia" (
). The intro paragraph states, "Because Wikipedia is a collaborative community, editors whose *personal agendas* and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed." The last paragraph of section 4 states, "Being 'here to build an encyclopedia' is about a user's overall *purpose* and behavior in editing Wikipedia." Those are statements about the intent of some editors. Without intent, there can be no personal agenda or purpose. Therefore, WP:NOTHERE is either the lack of intent to build an encyclopedia or the intent not to build an encyclopedia.
When you block someone for WP:NOTHERE, you are, in fact, doing so because of their intent or lack thereof. You may use their actions as evidence that the block is appropriate, but that's different from not blocking them because of their intent.
Sincerely,
FlyingEagle95
PS: I chose that snapshot because it was made shortly after your comment.
Peter Southwood wrote:
...
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on what they have done, we generally
don’t care what they claim to have intended, as there is no way to prove or disprove such
claims. Cheers, Peter
From: Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan
Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern
during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for
expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main
points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard -
which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any
extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines
against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to
deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any
form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience
using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested.
Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens
rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and
we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at
all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction
and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng <sng(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines
for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community
policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different
policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking
into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could
have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could
differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we
look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important
to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is
“intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this
would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next
sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what
a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.”
(emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often
called in law the “reasonable person
” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built
around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The
community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the
policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique
dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as
COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy
review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list
is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both
spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of
Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their
explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information
concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on
Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is
a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity
outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made
over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
<rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like
to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the
Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and
has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received,
1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945
(41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments,
with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have
demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops
hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good
faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement
Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we
encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements
of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed
and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes.
As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to
reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community
engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received
from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by
non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be
heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement
Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore,
we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further
engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted
Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct
Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to
ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive
community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the
year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these
complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across
the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Gnangarra
4:49 p.m.
I'm concerned on a few points;
The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in
ucoc outcomes
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm ,
flyingeagle95@outlook.com
wrote:
...
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about
"gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support
your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an
encyclopedia" (
).
The intro paragraph states, "Because Wikipedia is a collaborative
community, editors whose *personal agendas* and actions appear to conflict
with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed." The last
paragraph of section 4 states, "Being 'here to build an encyclopedia' is
about a user's overall *purpose* and behavior in editing Wikipedia." Those
are statements about the intent of some editors. Without intent, there can
be no personal agenda or purpose. Therefore, WP:NOTHERE is either the lack
of intent to build an encyclopedia or the intent not to build an
encyclopedia.
When you block someone for WP:NOTHERE, you are, in fact, doing so because
of their intent or lack thereof. You may use their actions as evidence that
the block is appropriate, but that's different from not blocking them
because of their intent.
Sincerely,
FlyingEagle95
PS: I chose that snapshot because it was made shortly after your comment.
Peter Southwood wrote:
...
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on what they have
done, we generally
...
don’t care what they claim to have intended, as there is no way to prove
or disprove such
...
claims. Cheers, Peter
From: Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC
...
Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan
...
Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he
interpreted this concern
...
during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (
...
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for
...
expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into
account two main
...
points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable
person standard -
...
which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the
scenario, the
...
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in,
as well as any
...
extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For
instance, guidelines
...
against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of
which refer to
...
deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage in any
...
form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise
their experience
...
using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a
...
global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)
telkomsa.net>
...
wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested.
...
Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC
...
Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens
...
rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in
criminal cases, and
...
we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at
intent at
...
all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on
remediation, harm reduction
...
and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail
secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng <sng(a)
wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines
...
for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make
existing community
...
policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may
have different
...
policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”),
specifically taking
...
into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as
relationship and political
...
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the
individuals involved could
...
have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation
and action could
...
differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however,
is the UCoC. If we
...
look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under,
what is important
...
to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or
the behavior is
...
“intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any
behaviour where this
...
would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis
added). The next
...
sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if
it is beyond what
...
a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global,
intercultural environment.”
...
(emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent
and what is often
...
called in law the “reasonable person
...
” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement
Guidelines are built
...
around human review since application of policy will always require
judgment. The
...
community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in
context within the
...
policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties
involved, their unique
...
dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project
policies on doxxing as
...
COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy
...
review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
...
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list
...
is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both
...
spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
...
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of
...
Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors'
private
...
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their
...
explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or
sharing information
...
concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on
...
Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working
for a PR firm, is
...
a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity
...
outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that
User:Koavf has made
...
over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the
code as written.)
...
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
<rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like
...
to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community
vote on the
...
...
Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and
...
has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the
2,283 votes received,
...
1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines,
and a total of 945
...
(41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658
participants left comments,
...
with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have
...
demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia
community culture stops
...
hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior,
and encourages good
...
faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received.
The Enforcement
...
Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to
review. However, we
...
encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide
feedback on the elements
...
of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what
changes were needed
...
and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would
address community
...
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes.
...
As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the
Foundation to
...
reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake
another community
...
engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community
feedback received
...
from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
...
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
...
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by
...
non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and
cons;
...
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be
...
heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement
...
Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for
voters. Therefore,
...
we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after
the further
...
engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate
the redrafted
...
Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official
ratification.
...
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct
...
Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part
of the Code to
...
ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe
and inclusive
...
community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at
the end of the
...
year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these
...
complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working
together well across
...
the movement.
Best,
Rosie
...
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees
...
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
...
and
Public archives at
...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
...
and
Public archives at
...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
...
and
Public archives at
...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
...
Virus-free.
...
www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
...
and
Public archives at
...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
FlyingEagle 95
1 May
1 May
7:32 a.m.
Gnangarra:
I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my comment. Did you reply to the wrong person?
...
The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in
ucoc outcomes
What do you mean when you say, "legal rights of individuals to disappear"?
What do national laws have to do with the UCOC? Laws affect countries, and UCOC affects Wikimedia projects.
...
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations
Translators exist.
As for the other issues, that doesn't mean there should be no UCOC at all. Without the UCOC, some people might not even have a case to make. Every complaint you have about UCOC cases can also be applied to cases at the local project level.
...
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
I think you mean "with", not without. Why would we want to ensure that decisions are made *without* support or equal rights?
Are you implying that the UCOC and U4C shouldn't exist because it *might be* hard to make widely-supported and non-harmful decisions while giving all parties (in a case) equal rights? If so, that's not convincing. The U4C wouldn't have a good reason to take away someone's due process rights or make bad decisions. Abuse of power or bad decisions would risk them getting voted out of office.
Gnangarra wrote:
...
I'm concerned on a few points;
The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in
ucoc outcomes
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm , <flyingeagle95(a)outlook.com> wrote:
...
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about
"gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support
your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an
encyclopedia" (
).
The intro paragraph states, "Because Wikipedia is a collaborative
community, editors whose *personal agendas* and actions appear to conflict
with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed." The last
paragraph of section 4 states, "Being 'here to build an encyclopedia' is
about a user's overall *purpose* and behavior in editing Wikipedia." Those
are statements about the intent of some editors. Without intent, there can
be no personal agenda or purpose. Therefore, WP:NOTHERE is either the lack
of intent to build an encyclopedia or the intent not to build an
encyclopedia.
When you block someone for WP:NOTHERE, you are, in fact, doing so because
of their intent or lack thereof. You may use their actions as evidence that
the block is appropriate, but that's different from not blocking them
because of their intent.
Sincerely,
FlyingEagle95
PS: I chose that snapshot because it was made shortly after your comment.
Peter Southwood wrote:
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged
on what they have done, we generally
don’t care what they claim to have intended, as
there is no way to prove or disprove such
claims. Cheers, Peter
From: Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference
Jan
Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and
Safety, and how he interpreted this concern
during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of
guidelines for
expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy
was written to take into account two main
points: intent and context. It trusts people to
exercise the reasonable person standard -
which indicates that based on a reasonable
person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the
individuals involved in, as well as any
extrapolating information, could make a call on
an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance,
guidelines
against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects,
most if not all of which refer to
deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage
in any
form of law interpretation or anything complex,
but instead, to exercise their experience
using the parameters of what a reasonable person
would be expected to tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
Andreas Kolbe
26 Apr
26 Apr
12:25 a.m.
Hi Stella,
Thanks for your reply. It is much appreciated that you take the time. Now,
you point out that the UCoC is meant to establish a "minimum" set of
guidelines. "Minimum" means that anything forbidden or demanded in the UCoC
is forbidden or demanded globally, but that individual projects might
forbid or demand more. That what "minimum" means, right?
Now, the phrasing of all these items in section 3.1 is always the same. The
section describes what harassment "*includes*". It begins, "Harassment.
This *includes *..." Then, it introduces the bullet points with the
examples by saying, "Harassment *includes *but is not limited to ..."
So the way it is written, the intro does not qualify the bullet points.
Both the intro and the bullet points merely say what harassment "includes".
They are parallel. The intro, as written, does not say that the examples in
the bullet points only qualify as harassment IF certain conditions are met.
Another thing to think about here are the reputational risks inherent in
formulating authoritarian laws that are then applied selectively – it opens
the movement up to charges of hypocrisy. This is also a staple of
authoritarian states: have laws under which most everyone is guilty of
*something*, and you can find a reason to punish anyone whenever the need
arises.
But let's leave the theory and take some practical examples. They are all
related to this bullet UCoC point, which says harassment includes:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
Could you please comment on these below?
1.
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their
consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above
bullet point. Should this page exist?
2.
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?
3.
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
4.
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well
as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other
contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.
5.
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?
6.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
they were to make the same report today?
If you could look at these examples and come back to me, that would be much
appreciated.
Best,
Andreas
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:02 AM Stella Ng
sng@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen
toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment,
physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the
Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their
Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on
Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would
already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments
received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support
necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters,
regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of
the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes
were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits
that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to
review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended
purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for
the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better
approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation
Board of
Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
1089
Age (days ago)
1470
Last active (days ago)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
19 comments
13 participants
tags
(0)
participants
(13)
Andreas Kolbe
Carla Toro
FlyingEagle 95
flyingeagle95＠outlook.com
Gnangarra
H4CUSEG
Lane Chance
Maggie Dennis
Peter Southwood
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
Stella Ng
The Cunctator
Todd Allen