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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Respectfully, the inclusion of the second part does not seem to make much sense. On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 8:02 PM Stella Ng <sng(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

This question has been asked before, and I have never seen a reasonably practicable proposal for managing the problem. Cheers, Peter From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines 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. Vexations Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng &lt;sng(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22> ” 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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight &lt;rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines> 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 <https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yBcvUBz7x7xW_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5ipBVl-TBu9JIdHdySi6iZA1UTcm3AzWcx8bfkDvjMaftQqxtKRkjORZgmQ53i7g9bVQ6rEy7NhGdz4mZ6AcTe2tIAyMD9wH> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her) Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> _______________________________________________ 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… 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: 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… 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: 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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com

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 On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; 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 On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. Cheers, Peter. From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Cc: H4CUSEG Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines 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. Vexations Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng &lt;sng(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22> ” 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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight &lt;rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines> 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 <https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yBcvUBz7x7xW_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5ipBVl-TBu9JIdHdySi6iZA1UTcm3AzWcx8bfkDvjMaftQqxtKRkjORZgmQ53i7g9bVQ6rEy7NhGdz4mZ6AcTe2tIAyMD9wH> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her) Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> _______________________________________________ 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… 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: 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… 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: 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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com _______________________________________________ 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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Hello Everyone, Speaking as the senior manager of the team whose role it was to support the UCoC drafters: we should remember that high level, section 3 of the UCoC (Unacceptable Behavior) is meant to address bad behavior. When writing this, the drafting committee was thinking specifically of the potential of harm, such as physical or reputational as well the context and intent behind the behavior. It is also worth noting that currently, ENWP has rules regarding private information and doxxing that go into more detail than the UCoC Phase 1 text ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_info…). The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and negative) to help communities build upon. As noted previously, there will be a review of not only the UCoC but the Enforcement Guidelines one year after ratification is completed. During that period, feedback, as well as examples will be worked through to ensure that both texts are fit for purpose and lessen any ambiguity folks may be having issues with. Thanks! Stella On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Carla Toro &lt;carla.toro(a)wikimedia.cl&gt; wrote:

Hello, Lane. The Enforcement Guidelines discussion is being extended, but the Universal Code of Conduct <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct> is already policy, active on Wikimedia projects under the Terms of Use via provision 11 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#11._Resolutions_and_Project_Policies>. The Enforcement Guidelines are intended to provide a more universal framework of enforcement, but individual projects are already enforcing the code locally, and the Foundation has been acting under its provisions in its own investigations since its ratification. In terms of how people affected by unacceptable behavior should approach it, many communities already have protocols for handling behavioral issues, with local functionaries and administrators helping to enforce those. Where those do not exist, there are some global systems <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_comment> and, where those may not be appropriate, the Foundation’s office actions <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions> may provide necessary support. I do apologize if I’m explaining some things you already know; I am also thinking about what others in this channel may or may not be aware of. :) There will be a timeline update for the next phase of the project very soon. The teams are in the final stages of preparing a proposal for the Board. Best, Maggie On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:26 AM Lane Chance &lt;zinkloss(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Maggie Dennis She/her/hers Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

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 > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; > wrote: > > This question has been asked before, and so far no workable answer has been suggested. > Cheers, Peter. > > > > From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org] > Sent: 20 April 2022 19:44 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Cc: H4CUSEG > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC > Enforcement Guidelines > > > > 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. > > > > Vexations > > > > Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> secure email. > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng &lt;sng(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22> > ” 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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight > &lt;rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines> > 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 > > > > <https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yBcvUBz7x7xW_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5ipBVl-TBu9JIdHdySi6iZA1UTcm3AzWcx8bfkDvjMaftQqxtKRkjORZgmQ53i7g9bVQ6rEy7NhGdz4mZ6AcTe2tIAyMD9wH> > > > Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her) > > Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee > > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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… > 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: > 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… > 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: > 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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > Virus-free. > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > www.avg.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Gnangarra: I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my comment. Did you reply to the wrong person? 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. 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. 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; > > vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in > ucoc outcomes > > language, experience, and community support or reputations > > supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community > > > > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm , &lt;flyingeagle95(a)outlook.com&gt; 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