I'm concerned on a few points;
The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in ucoc outcomes
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on, language, experience, and community support or reputations
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm , flyingeagle95@outlook.com wrote:
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about "gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia" ( 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:sng@wikimedia.org] Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference Jan
Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and Safety, and how he
interpreted this concern
during the last CAC conversation hour on April 21st (
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of guidelines for
expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy was written to take into
account two main
points: intent and context. It trusts people to exercise the reasonable
person standard -
which indicates that based on a reasonable person’s judgment of the
scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the individuals involved in,
as well as any
extrapolating information, could make a call on an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For
instance, guidelines
against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects, most if not all of
which refer to
deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage in any
form of law interpretation or anything complex, but instead, to exercise
their experience
using the parameters of what a reasonable person would be expected to
tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)
telkomsa.net>
wrote:
This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has
been suggested.
Cheers, Peter.
From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to
establish the mens
rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to prove in
criminal cases, and
we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? We should not look at
intent at
all, consider only the actual harm that occurred and focus on
remediation, harm reduction
and rehabilitation in stead of punishing people.
Vexations
Sent with ProtonMail 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
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct...
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
<
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yBcvUBz7x7xW_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5i...
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/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&...
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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org …
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org