Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks, Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks, Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks, Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Respectfully, the inclusion of the second part does not seem to make much sense.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 8:02 PM Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks, Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “[reasonable person](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)... 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
- Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks, Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the[Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct...).
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](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) Board of Trustees
[foundationsite:](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22 ” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22 ” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered* harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Actually,
In response tp a question asked a6 35:56 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cd2FxovdXE at
"Some have voiced concerns that the UCoC requires thinking around consent. How are communities expected to engage with that?"
Jan Eissfeld said: (35:08)
"The UCoC, this is probably a useful way to think about it, has been designed as a minimum standard for expected behaviour as well as to help identify unwanted behaviour.
Now, the foundation and the communities have always agreed and the foundation has always trusted in the communities being able to exercise a reasonable person standard, so community members who adjudicate concerns or bring concerns to the attention of the community have always exercised the ability to look at the intent and look at the context to the best of their abilities and then find reasonable solutions.
I would think about this issue in a comparable manner. And this is also a long-established practice, if you think about two examples: For example, 26 communities already have rules in place, or guidelines, at least, in place related to not gaming the system of self governance. That very heavily depends on both the intent and the context. And in general, communities have done an excellent job enforcing that on their own. Equally, the blocking reason for not being here in order to contribute to the encyclopedia is one of the oldest, and most widely used blocking reasons on many Wikipedia language versions. Which very specifically is a question of intent. So the communities are very, very good at handling that.
We certainly do not believe that the community drafting committee for phase 1 assumed a different standard than the reasonable person standard that has always been used across the movement, I think very successfully. So if you think about consent in that context, this strikes me a as a reasonable way to think about it."
He almost makes it sound as if the communities were doing very, very well without the UCoC. Funny that.
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Monday, April 25th, 2022 at 11:38 AM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood [email protected] wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
[]
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “[reasonable person](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)... 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
·Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the[Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct...).
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](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) Board of Trustees
[foundationsite:](https://wikimediafoundation.org/)
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&...
Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&...)
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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:[email protected]] Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood [email protected] wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22 ” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above bullet point. Should this page exist? - This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the government.
2. https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... 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. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today? - They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.
4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that participants will be held to. -Same as 3.
5. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment? - Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
6. https://archive.ph/NAsft Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today? - By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... 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 ( [email protected]) 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:[email protected]] *Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered* harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_infor...). 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 [email protected] 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.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... 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.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... 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.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?
- Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?
- By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... 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 ( [email protected]) 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:[email protected]] *Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered* harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_infor...). 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 [email protected] 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.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... 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.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... 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.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?
- Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?
- By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... 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 ( [email protected]) 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:[email protected]] *Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered* harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Hello, Lane.
The Enforcement Guidelines discussion is being extended, but the Universal Code of Conduct https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct is already policy, active on Wikimedia projects under the Terms of Use via provision 11 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#11._Resolutions_and_Project_Policies. 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_comment and, where those may not be appropriate, the Foundation’s office actions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_infor...). 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 [email protected] 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.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... 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.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... 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.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?
- Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?
- By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone
reporting another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... 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 ( [email protected]) 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:[email protected]] *Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered* harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_infor...). 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 [email protected] 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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_infor...). 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 [email protected] 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.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... 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.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... 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.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?
- Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed
multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?
- By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... 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 ( [email protected]) 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:[email protected]] *Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Cc:* H4CUSEG *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered* harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about "gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220430213703/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wik...). 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:[email protected]] Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng <sng(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22 ” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
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
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]%... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]%... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]%... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]%... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
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 , [email protected] wrote:
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about "gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20220430213703/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wik...). 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:[email protected]] Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan
Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he
interpreted this concern
during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (
https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for
expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into
account two main
points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable
person standard -
which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the
scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in,
as well as any
extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For
instance, guidelines
against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of
which refer to
deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage in any
form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise
their experience
using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)
telkomsa.net>
wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested.
Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens
rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in
criminal cases, and
we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at
intent at
all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on
remediation, harm reduction
and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail https://protonmail.com/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng <sng(a)
wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines
for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make
existing community
policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may
have different
policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”),
specifically taking
into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as
relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the
individuals involved could
have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation
and action could
differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however,
is the UCoC. If we
look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under,
what is important
to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or
the behavior is
“intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any
behaviour where this
would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis
added). The next
sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if
it is beyond what
a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global,
intercultural environment.”
(emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent
and what is often
called in law the “reasonable person <
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)...
” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement
Guidelines are built
around human review since application of policy will always require
judgment. The
community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in
context within the
policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties
involved, their unique
dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project
policies on doxxing as
COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy
review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list
is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both
spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of
Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors'
private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their
explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or
sharing information
concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on
Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working
for a PR firm, is
a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity
outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that
User:Koavf has made
over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the
code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like
to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community
vote on the
<
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
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] …
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] …
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] …
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&...
Virus-free. <
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&...
www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] …
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Gnangarra:
I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my comment. Did you reply to the wrong person?
The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in ucoc outcomes
What do you mean when you say, "legal rights of individuals to disappear"?
What do national laws have to do with the UCOC? Laws affect countries, and UCOC affects Wikimedia projects.
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations
Translators exist.
As for the other issues, that doesn't mean there should be no UCOC at all. Without the UCOC, some people might not even have a case to make. Every complaint you have about UCOC cases can also be applied to cases at the local project level.
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
I think you mean "with", not without. Why would we want to ensure that decisions are made *without* support or equal rights?
Are you implying that the UCOC and U4C shouldn't exist because it *might be* hard to make widely-supported and non-harmful decisions while giving all parties (in a case) equal rights? If so, that's not convincing. The U4C wouldn't have a good reason to take away someone's due process rights or make bad decisions. Abuse of power or bad decisions would risk them getting voted out of office.
Gnangarra wrote:
I'm concerned on a few points;
The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in ucoc outcomes
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on, language, experience, and community support or reputations
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm , <flyingeagle95(a)outlook.com> wrote:
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about "gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia" (
https://web.archive.org/web/20220430213703/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi%...). The intro paragraph states, "Because Wikipedia is a collaborative community, editors whose *personal agendas* and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed." The last paragraph of section 4 states, "Being 'here to build an encyclopedia' is about a user's overall *purpose* and behavior in editing Wikipedia." Those are statements about the intent of some editors. Without intent, there can be no personal agenda or purpose. Therefore, WP:NOTHERE is either the lack of intent to build an encyclopedia or the intent not to build an encyclopedia.
When you block someone for WP:NOTHERE, you are, in fact, doing so because of their intent or lack thereof. You may use their actions as evidence that the block is appropriate, but that's different from not blocking them because of their intent.
Sincerely, FlyingEagle95
PS: I chose that snapshot because it was made shortly after your comment.
Peter Southwood wrote: When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on what they have done, we generally don’t care what they claim to have intended, as there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
From: Stella Ng [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st ( https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into account two main points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
Hi Stella,
Thanks for your reply. It is much appreciated that you take the time. Now, you point out that the UCoC is meant to establish a "minimum" set of guidelines. "Minimum" means that anything forbidden or demanded in the UCoC is forbidden or demanded globally, but that individual projects might forbid or demand more. That what "minimum" means, right?
Now, the phrasing of all these items in section 3.1 is always the same. The section describes what harassment "*includes*". It begins, "Harassment. This *includes *..." Then, it introduces the bullet points with the examples by saying, "Harassment *includes *but is not limited to ..."
So the way it is written, the intro does not qualify the bullet points. Both the intro and the bullet points merely say what harassment "includes". They are parallel. The intro, as written, does not say that the examples in the bullet points only qualify as harassment IF certain conditions are met.
Another thing to think about here are the reputational risks inherent in formulating authoritarian laws that are then applied selectively – it opens the movement up to charges of hypocrisy. This is also a staple of authoritarian states: have laws under which most everyone is guilty of *something*, and you can find a reason to punish anyone whenever the need arises.
But let's leave the theory and take some practical examples. They are all related to this bullet UCoC point, which says harassment includes:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
Could you please comment on these below?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above bullet point. Should this page exist?
2. https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the journalist be punished?
3. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that participants will be held to.
5. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?
6. https://archive.ph/NAsft Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?
If you could look at these examples and come back to me, that would be much appreciated.
Best, Andreas
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:02 AM Stella Ng [email protected] wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen [email protected] 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 [email protected] wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks, Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .
The volunteer 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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees
https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/... To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]