Gnangarra:
I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my comment. Did you reply to the wrong person?
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
What do you mean when you say, "legal rights of individuals to disappear"?
What do national laws have to do with the UCOC? Laws affect countries, and UCOC affects Wikimedia projects.
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations
Translators exist.
As for the other issues, that doesn't mean there should be no UCOC at all. Without the UCOC, some people might not even have a case to make. Every complaint you have about UCOC cases can also be applied to cases at the local project level.
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
I think you mean "with", not without. Why would we want to ensure that decisions are made *without* support or equal rights?
Are you implying that the UCOC and U4C shouldn't exist because it *might be* hard to make widely-supported and non-harmful decisions while giving all parties (in a case) equal rights? If so, that's not convincing. The U4C wouldn't have a good reason to take away someone's due process rights or make bad decisions. Abuse of power or bad decisions would risk them getting voted out of office.
Gnangarra wrote:
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(a)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/Wi%...). 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 ( 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