Hi, There are various unanswered queries on the UCoC talk pages.[1][2] I wonder if you or someone else involved in drafting the UCoC could comment. Several of these queries concern the wording of the Harassment section, in particular the "Disclosure of personal data (Doxing)" subsection included therein.[3] This subsection currently reads as follows (my emphasis): "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*." 1. As written, this literally means that Wikimedians will not be allowed to share "information concerning [other contributors'] Wikimedia activity outside the projects". While this may not be the intended meaning, it is the literal meaning – and reminiscent of Fight Club: "The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club." Could you comment? Do you really mean to say that contributors are not allowed to communicate with any outside person about what happens on the projects? How would this affect bloggers like the following: https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/ https://thewikipedian.net/ https://wikipediocracy.com/2021/11/22/wikipedia-loves-stolen-art/ Or is this a case of the wording having gone awry? 2. The subsection mentions "place of employment". There are pages on Wikipedia, in project space and article space, that discuss contributors' place of employment. Examples are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangemoody_editing_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia Wikipedia editors and arbitrators have in the past commented on such cases to the media. Will this be forbidden under the new Universal Code of Conduct rules? 3. What about cases like the ones listed below? From the perspective of the UCoC, were any of the protagonists in these cases ("David r from Meth Productions", "Wifione", "Qworty") victims of harassment as a result of their activities being discussed on-wiki or elsewhere? https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedi… https://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-bu… 4. Another contributor has asked on the talk pages whether, according to the terms of the UCoC, they will be deemed guilty of harassment in the Wikimediaverse if they sue another contributor for libel and discuss their complaint in court. Another worries about contributors' ability to report child protection issues to the authorities. Indeed, the WMF itself has at times alerted the authorities to suspicious activities on its sites and shared contributors' personal details (I recall a case where it appeared from postings on Wikipedia that a troubled teenager was contemplating a school shooting). Is the Universal Code of Conduct intended to put an end to such reports? I would be grateful for a clarification of the impact the Universal Code of Conduct is intended to have on the above issues. Best, Andreas [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3_–_Unacceptable_… On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 3:13 AM Youngjin Ko <yko-ctr(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Fair comment. P -----Original Message----- From: nosebagbear(a)gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step Hello, I would make a couple of notes here: One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be of the process. There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft policy text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for open review and further revision. While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen nothing formal and nothing in writing. Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits (that's why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to review than the aspects already there, not less. Yours, Nosebagbear _______________________________________________ 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/ message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

Hi Patrick, Thanks. You say, *The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.* If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and ratification", does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in February 2022? Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place? Thanking you in advance for your clarification. Best, Andreas On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi Patrick, Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023. As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some answers to the questions I asked earlier? https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed – – To blog about what happens on Wikipedia? – To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits? – To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-net… and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)? – To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed? Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be subject to blocks and bans? I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent correctly. Best, Andreas On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: