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?

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 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?

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?

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. 

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? 

Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today? 

If you could look at these examples and come back to me, that would be much appreciated. 

Best,
Andreas







On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:02 AM Stella Ng <sng@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hello Andreas and Todd, 


I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this. 


First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior.  However, it does not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing policies.  


What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “reasonable person” test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are built around human review since application of policy will always require judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day. 


However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 2.



Regards,

Stella



On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".

I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially regarding both spammers and already-public information.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rosie,

Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the Universal Code of Conduct:

  • Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.

As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.

The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already be in breach of the code as written.)

Thanks,
Andreas


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/4TAB4MZK6TU5RMQR2ICQFZLM3ZH2DK6P/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org