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_information). The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and negative) to help communities build upon.
As noted previously, there will be a review of not only the UCoC but the Enforcement Guidelines one year after ratification is completed. During that period, feedback, as well as examples will be worked through to ensure that both texts are fit for purpose and lessen any ambiguity folks may be having issues with.
Thanks!
Stella
_______________________________________________On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Carla Toro <carla.toro@wikimedia.cl> wrote:_______________________________________________Hi everyone,I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being the act of revealing identifying information about someone online with the clear intention of harassing someone. And I think I can use the examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above bullet point. Should this page exist?- This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the government.This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the journalist be punished?- Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the disclousure of the information.This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?- They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that participants will be held to.-Same as 3.In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?- Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?- By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their profile on WP) in pornographic sites.I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions. This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel safe?".We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.Best,CarlaEl mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood (peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:_______________________________________________When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged on what they have done, we generally don’t care what they claim to have intended, as there is no way to prove or disprove such claims. Cheers, Peter
From: Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to reference Jan Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he interpreted this concern during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (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@telkomsa.net> wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng <sng@wikimedia.org> wrote:Hello Andreas and Todd,
I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.
Regards,
Stella
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:
· Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <rstephenson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 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/message/JAYQN3NYKCHQHONMUONYTI6WRKZFQNSC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/FT4YMOEEOH5TNUPNRKNFQH2WLVDCRNPS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/5CV2KU3G6UAKTJPCDFQG6HFTMYO2US7R/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/IYYTUDUONEWTUBNTMLPCQDJ4P6INGN2Y/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/P5E5HYLKA7NOEE3KARPE5OQJQRJDAWMP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/A2C3WMZ3WBBNZENLNN2QJ3M7342BSVNN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/WJK4FQGNMF6WLT5T55NI7BEOZXWUENL2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
