Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 3 - Wikimedia-l

13 Dec 2021


      Quoth its own page, the BOT's remit is " The Wikimedia Foundation *Board of
Trustees* oversees the Wikimedia Foundation and its work", not the
Movement.
If the BOT wants to act as an actual representative body (which it doesn't
claim to be) then it would need significant rework and a clear statement
that that's what voters were voting for.
As to the issue raised by another on meta-rfcs being dominated by en-wiki
(although the stats I've seen on recent ones don't show a wild disparity
compared to the large plurality of all editors), I actually raised a
proposal specifically to factor that in for the actual UCOC ratification,
but the selection of that method (to avoid a "turtles all the way down"
issue) would inherently need to be something pre-standing - UCOC drafting
committee would certainly be fine there.
The WMF was heavily opposed to proposals to do a much more distributed
approach to avoid that specific issue, in the last ratification meeting
hosted.
That meeting in general, unlike its predecessor, was significantly more
fractious.
In general, a good demonstration on why ratification methodologies are a
good thing to specify before every side has had a chance to become highly
invested in an actual draft language.
*Richard (Nosebagbear)*
Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:09, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
        wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
You can reach the person managing the list at
        wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:

Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1 (Gerard Meijssen)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:08:26 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
        <
CAO53wxUmGy3DO3aqEj4FdAkv6Ho6oEzaa7PxbpRjyGDgcbJzSA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="00000000000058672505d306c5f4"
Hoi,
The community as such does not have any standing. They are represented by
some members in the board. People may volunteer to be part of all kinds of
committees. When they do they do not represent anything but themselves. The
committees play a role because they have been giving standing by the board.
Thanks,
     GerardM
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:08, Nosebagbear nosebagbear@gmail.com wrote:
...
Hello,
I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm
pretty
...
confident I did not.
Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an
odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I
did.
But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed
responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to
the
...
degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example,
the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's
enshrined in law.
p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change
this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for
someone to change to an appropriate title.
*Richard (Nosebagbear)*
Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
viewpoints
...
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
        wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
...
...
You can reach the person managing the list at
        wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:

Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
        <CAO53wxVEwnU=
Aa-27GAuAJXy3yrJ25aJBkPKRyTk2-jJTSvBww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="00000000000056b3ac05d305c5c3"
Hoi,
Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a
remit
...
...
under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
Thanks,
      GerardM
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear nosebagbear@gmail.com
wrote:
...
...
...
Dear Patrick,
Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S
policy,
...
directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all
the
...
way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for
ratification
...
far before the ArbCom letter.
Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a
need
...
for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was
made,
...
...
or
...
that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing]
the
...
...
...
input received so far on what would make a fair and practical
process."
...
...


...
there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
*Richard (Nosebagbear)*
Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
viewpoints
...
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate
judgement
...
of the MCDC.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
...
...
wrote:
...
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
        wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
...
...
...
...
You can reach the person managing the list at
        wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:

Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
      (Andreas Kolbe)

...
...
...
...
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +0000
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
        period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
Guidelines
        and next step
To: Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
        <
CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="00000000000055427605d280b9bb"
Hi Patrick,
Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there
will
...
...
be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023.
As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide
some
...
...
...
...
answers to the questions I asked earlier?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
...
...
...
...
For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are
Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed –
– To blog about what happens on Wikipedia?
– To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government
on-
...
...
and
...
...
off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits?
– To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or
subverting
Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent
Christian
...
...
...
...
Rosa
case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw...
...
...
...
...
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_revie...
...
...
...
...
...
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>> <
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
...
...
...
...
...
>>> 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/...
...
...
...
...
...
>>> 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/...
...
...
...
...
...
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
...
...
...
>
>
--
Patrick Earley
Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
pearley@wikimedia.org