Hi everyone,
I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under
the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being
the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with the
clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the examples
given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.
1.
This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their
consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above
bullet point. Should this page exist?
- This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the
government.
2.
This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
journalist be punished?
- Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
disclousure of the information.
3.
This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
- They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They weren't
sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own
investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be
sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.
4.
In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well
as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other
contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
participants will be held to.
-Same as 3.
5.
In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on
Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name.
(The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article
harassment?
- Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed multiple
living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The
Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.
6.
Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government
employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the
project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that
the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.
How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if
they were to make the same report today?
- By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting
another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with
the wikimedia movement.
A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:
When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their
profile on WP) in pornographic sites.
I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their
issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions.
This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different
cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing
this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this
guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel
safe?".
We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia
Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.
Best,
Carla
El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net) escribió:
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on
*what they have done*,
we generally don’t care what they *claim to have intended*, as there is
no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
*From:* Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 25 April 2022 17:38
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how
he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was
written to take into account two main points*: intent and context*. It
trusts people to exercise the reasonable person standard - which indicates
that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in, as
well as any extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement
action.
*This is not a new way of working for many of our communities*. For
instance, guidelines against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most
if not all of which refer to deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people to
engage in any form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead,
to exercise their experience using the parameters of what a reasonable
person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
*From:* H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
*Sent:* 20 April 2022 19:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* H4CUSEG
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things
to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it
right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm
that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation
in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng <sng(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does
not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
the information is provided or the behavior is “*intended primarily* to
intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered*
harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a global, intercultural environment*.” (emphasis added) The
policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
in law the “reasonable person
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22>”
test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
are built around human review since application of policy will always
require judgment. The community members who review situations will
hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
· *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the 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
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.
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 -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org