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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 < rstephenson@wikimedia.org> 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 Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .

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; 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

*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)

Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees

https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

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 sng@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 person](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)... 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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 rstephenson@wikimedia.org 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[Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/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 non-experts;

To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;

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

Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)

Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee

[Wikimedia Foundation](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) Board of Trustees

[foundationsite:](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

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 sng@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 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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 rstephenson@wikimedia.org 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@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

Actually,

In response tp a question asked a6 35:56 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cd2FxovdXE at

"Some have voiced concerns that the UCoC requires thinking around consent. How are communities expected to engage with that?"

Jan Eissfeld said: (35:08)

"The UCoC, this is probably a useful way to think about it, has been designed as a minimum standard for expected behaviour as well as to help identify unwanted behaviour.

Now, the foundation and the communities have always agreed and the foundation has always trusted in the communities being able to exercise a reasonable person standard, so community members who adjudicate concerns or bring concerns to the attention of the community have always exercised the ability to look at the intent and look at the context to the best of their abilities and then find reasonable solutions.

I would think about this issue in a comparable manner. And this is also a long-established practice, if you think about two examples: For example, 26 communities already have rules in place, or guidelines, at least, in place related to not gaming the system of self governance. That very heavily depends on both the intent and the context. And in general, communities have done an excellent job enforcing that on their own. Equally, the blocking reason for not being here in order to contribute to the encyclopedia is one of the oldest, and most widely used blocking reasons on many Wikipedia language versions. Which very specifically is a question of intent. So the communities are very, very good at handling that.

We certainly do not believe that the community drafting committee for phase 1 assumed a different standard than the reasonable person standard that has always been used across the movement, I think very successfully. So if you think about consent in that context, this strikes me a as a reasonable way to think about it."

He almost makes it sound as if the communities were doing very, very well without the UCoC. Funny that.

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.

------- Original Message ------- On Monday, April 25th, 2022 at 11:38 AM, Stella Ng sng@wikimedia.org wrote:

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@telkomsa.net 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 sng@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 person](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun&text=(law)... 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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 rstephenson@wikimedia.org 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[Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/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:

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

Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)

Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee

[Wikimedia Foundation](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) Board of Trustees

[foundationsite:](https://wikimediafoundation.org/)

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&...

Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&...)

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

Hi everyone,

I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above bullet point. Should this page exist? - This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the government.

2. https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the journalist be punished? - Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the disclousure of the information.

3. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today? - They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.

4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that participants will be held to. -Same as 3.

5. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment? - Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.

6. https://archive.ph/NAsft Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today? - By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.

A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their profile on WP) in pornographic sites.

I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions. This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel safe?". We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.

Best,

Carla

El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood ( peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:

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 < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> 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 sng@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 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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 < rstephenson@wikimedia.org> 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 Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.

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

*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)

Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees

https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient

Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

Hi, from the statements so far, there seems no planned date for implementation. By this I mean a date from which an affected volunteer can raise a complaint.

Given the extended redrafting, "conversations" and having another vote, is it fair to estimate that the earliest for UCoC cases would be sometime in 2023, probably more than 12 months from now?

In practice would this also mean that people affected by unacceptable behaviour in 2021 and probably throughout 2022 should give up on any plan they may have to lodge a UCoC case?

Lane

On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 17:44, Stella Ng sng@wikimedia.org wrote:

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_infor...). 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 carla.toro@wikimedia.cl wrote:

...

Hi everyone,

I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits

This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above bullet point. Should this page exist?

• This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the

government.

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the journalist be punished?

• Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but

not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the disclousure of the information.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?

• They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They

weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.

4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale

In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that participants will be held to. -Same as 3.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?

• Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed

multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.

6. https://archive.ph/NAsft

Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?

• By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting

another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.

A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their profile on WP) in pornographic sites.

I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions. This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel safe?". We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.

Best,

Carla

El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood ( peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:

...

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 < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> 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 sng@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 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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 < rstephenson@wikimedia.org> 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 Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.

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

*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)

Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees

https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient

Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

Hi Stella,

You say, "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_infor...). The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and negative) to help communities build upon."

The problem is that as far as I can see, English Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not meet the "minimum" standard asked for by the UCoC.

English Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow things the UCoC forbids, and do not demand things asked for by the UCoC. To my mind it is now entirely unclear whether or not people can, or will be able to do an end run around English Wikipedia policies and guidelines by applying for UCoC rulings where no English Wikipedia policy or guideline would apply, and whether or not the UCoC is intended to overrule English Wikipedia policies and guidlines.

Andreas

On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 5:44 PM Stella Ng sng@wikimedia.org wrote:

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_infor...). 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 carla.toro@wikimedia.cl wrote:

...

Hi everyone,

I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits

This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above bullet point. Should this page exist?

• This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the

government.

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the journalist be punished?

• Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but

not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the disclousure of the information.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?

• They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They

weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going investigation.

4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale

In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that participants will be held to. -Same as 3.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?

• Yes this is harrassment on both sides (the WP editor who defamed

multiple living people on WP and the journalist that wrote the article). The Wikimedian should be sanctioned under the policies of WP.

6. https://archive.ph/NAsft

Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?

• By doing the same report. This is not doxing, this is someone reporting

another user that used their sysop power for purposes that do not go with the wikimedia movement.

A very unfortunate example of doxing (and harrassment) is the one here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-host... When some Wikipedians put the photos of another user (related to their profile on WP) in pornographic sites.

I understand that everyone wants to make the UCoC better, and have their issues regarding some of the guidelines, but please also give solutions. This is not some easy thing to do because everyone lives in different cultures and our different context matter, but maybe instead of viewing this as "so now I can't say or do this" view this as "how can this guidelines help the community -- especially the minorities -- to feel safe?". We -- women and minorities -- need the UCoC to feel safe in the Wikimedia Community. So please, let's move towards a UCoC that ensures that.

Best,

Carla

El mar, 26 abr 2022 a la(s) 03:59, Peter Southwood ( peter.southwood@telkomsa.net) escribió:

...

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 < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> 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 sng@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 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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 < rstephenson@wikimedia.org> 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 Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines.

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

*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)

Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees

https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient

Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

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@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/Wik...). 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)...

...

” 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 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_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5i...

...

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&...

...

Virus-free. <

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&...

...

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

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

Hi Stella,

Thanks for your reply. It is much appreciated that you take the time. Now, you point out that the UCoC is meant to establish a "minimum" set of guidelines. "Minimum" means that anything forbidden or demanded in the UCoC is forbidden or demanded globally, but that individual projects might forbid or demand more. That what "minimum" means, right?

Now, the phrasing of all these items in section 3.1 is always the same. The section describes what harassment "*includes*". It begins, "Harassment. This *includes *..." Then, it introduces the bullet points with the examples by saying, "Harassment *includes *but is not limited to ..."

So the way it is written, the intro does not qualify the bullet points. Both the intro and the bullet points merely say what harassment "includes". They are parallel. The intro, as written, does not say that the examples in the bullet points only qualify as harassment IF certain conditions are met.

Another thing to think about here are the reputational risks inherent in formulating authoritarian laws that are then applied selectively – it opens the movement up to charges of hypocrisy. This is also a staple of authoritarian states: have laws under which most everyone is guilty of *something*, and you can find a reason to punish anyone whenever the need arises.

But let's leave the theory and take some practical examples. They are all related to this bullet UCoC point, which says harassment includes:

- *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.

Could you please comment on these below?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the above bullet point. Should this page exist?

2. https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wi... This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the journalist be punished?

3. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?

4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that participants will be held to.

5. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow journalist, as it turned out – who had defamed multiple living people on Wikipedia. He gives the name of his Wikipedia account and his real name. (The culprit subsequently publicly apologised.) Is the linked article harassment?

6. https://archive.ph/NAsft Here a Wikipedian claimed that a fellow Wikipedian was a government employee. He "shared information concerning her activity outside the project". He also claimed she had sysops tortured. The record shows that the accused was subsequently globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. How would the Wikipedian who made the report be judged under the UCoC if they were to make the same report today?

If you could look at these examples and come back to me, that would be much appreciated.

Best, Andreas

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:02 AM Stella Ng sng@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 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 toddmallen@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.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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,[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 < rstephenson@wikimedia.org> 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 Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines .

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; 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

*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)

Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Board of Trustees

https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org