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.
Sent with [
------- 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
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.
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.
> 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, 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
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
>>> To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
>>> Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
>>> [Wikimedia Foundation](https://wikimediafoundation.org/)
Board of Trustees
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
>>> Public archives at
>>> 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:
>> Public archives at
>> 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:
> Public archives at
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org