I'm concerned on a few points;
The difference in the legal rights of individuals to disappear, as eu laws
vs us laws vs Chinese laws and host other countries. There is no equity in
ucoc outcomes
The disparities between a person's capacity make or defend a case based on,
language, experience, and community support or reputations
The moral dilemma of ensuring that the decisions taken without adequate
supports, equal rights, causing harm outside the community
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 10:41 pm , <flyingeagle95(a)outlook.com> wrote:
Peter Southwood:
Your reply doesn't disprove Stella Ng's comment. Her comment was about
"gaming the system", which is a more specific concept than WP:NOTHERE.
But even if we're talking about WP:NOTHERE, the evidence doesn't support
your claim. Let's look at the article titled "Wikipedia:Here to build an
encyclopedia" (
https://web.archive.org/web/20220430213703/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi…).
The intro paragraph states, "Because Wikipedia is a collaborative
community, editors whose *personal agendas* and actions appear to conflict
with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed." The last
paragraph of section 4 states, "Being 'here to build an encyclopedia' is
about a user's overall *purpose* and behavior in editing Wikipedia." Those
are statements about the intent of some editors. Without intent, there can
be no personal agenda or purpose. Therefore, WP:NOTHERE is either the lack
of intent to build an encyclopedia or the intent not to build an
encyclopedia.
When you block someone for WP:NOTHERE, you are, in fact, doing so because
of their intent or lack thereof. You may use their actions as evidence that
the block is appropriate, but that's different from not blocking them
because of their intent.
Sincerely,
FlyingEagle95
PS: I chose that snapshot because it was made shortly after your comment.
Peter Southwood wrote:
When someone is blocked for NOTHERE, it is judged
on what they have
done, we generally
don’t care what they claim to have intended, as
there is no way to prove
or disprove such
claims. Cheers, Peter
From: Stella Ng [mailto:sng@wikimedia.org]
Sent: 25 April 2022 17:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: H4CUSEG
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
and UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate the questions and concerns regarding intent - I’m going to
reference
Jan
Eissfeldt here, the Global Head of Trust and
Safety, and how he
interpreted this concern
during the last CAC conversation hour on April
21st (
https://youtu.be/3cd2FxovdXE)
As mentioned previously, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set
of
guidelines for
expected and unacceptable behavior. The policy
was written to take into
account two main
points: intent and context. It trusts people to
exercise the reasonable
person standard -
which indicates that based on a reasonable
person’s judgment of the
scenario, the
personalities behind it, and the context of the
individuals involved in,
as well as any
extrapolating information, could make a call on
an enforcement action.
This is not a new way of working for many of our communities. For
instance,
guidelines
against “Gaming the system” exist in 26 projects,
most if not all of
which refer to
deliberate intention or bad faith.
We do not believe that the crafters of the UCoC were looking for people
to engage
in any
form of law interpretation or anything complex,
but instead, to exercise
their experience
using the parameters of what a reasonable person
would be expected to
tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment.
Regards,
Stella
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:14 AM Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)
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(a)
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(a)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(a)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(a)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_Conduc…
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_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5…
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://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://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://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@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://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@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