Hi Patrick,

Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023.

As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some answers to the questions I asked earlier?

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H4FGTRCTKKCLJXFQVWFOCHMZCOFE2KBM/

For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed –

– To blog about what happens on Wikipedia? 

– To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits?

– To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)? 

– To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?

Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be subject to blocks and bans?

I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent correctly.

Best,
Andreas

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley <pearley@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi Andreas,


The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and the ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised by the Drafting Committee.  Detailed information of the policy text review will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for comment and ratification.  The review will likely follow established policy update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1] 


Patrick


[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment


On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Patrick,

Thanks. You say,

The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and complications arise.  The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.

If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and ratification", does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in February 2022?

Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place? 

Thanking you in advance for your clarification.

Best,
Andreas
 

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley <pearley@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hello, all.


In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email:


Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process under review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and complications arise.  The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time. Figuring out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a very difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting Committee from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the movement in this area.  


To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their last thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on revising the text.  It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no more discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes place. The revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for comment and discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the input received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft review. 


In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will take place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community members and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the details.  We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets in mid-December and considers the input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process. 


Patrick


[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_reviews



On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Fair comment.
P

-----Original Message-----
From: nosebagbear@gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment period for
the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step

Hello,

I would make a couple of notes here:

One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be of the
process.

There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft policy
text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for open
review and further revision.

While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen nothing
formal and nothing in writing.

Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the
community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits (that's
why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to review
than the aspects already there, not less.

Yours,

Nosebagbear
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/

To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
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/message/SXTXR5H2SIO7YTK74GSJX66CWC2PMWFN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


--
Patrick Earley
Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager 
Wikimedia Foundation
pearley@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/message/6QWLWX53QN4S3FFZG7D2WDGFKIRAHDND/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


--
Patrick Earley
Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager 
Wikimedia Foundation
pearley@wikimedia.org