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