Hi Lucy et al,

I would echo some of Deryck’s concerns and would also suggest considering:

· The need for anonymity in some cases and WMF office type actions without the “accused” being able to have their say (or even be aware they are being investigated) – The power of WMF office actions in the online space may go against the nature of consensus building and developing a collegiate culture (which is surely part of the purpose of the UCoC).

· The provision of training for those running events etc – presumably WMUK will need to provide this (not just train the trainer, but also for programme staff, trustees and presumably the wider community) we need to consider when, where, how etc and how this will be carried out and monitored – will some of those who have been running events for years be unable to do this until “training” received? Presumably Level 1 will be sufficient for most people? I am not quite sure what the note “Having a level of training should not be construed as holding the level of community trust required to perform the actions covered under the training” means and how it will be interpreted.

Rod

From: Deryck Chan [mailto:deryckchan@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 November 2021 10:24
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Re: Universal Code of Conduct - Ratification of Enforcement Guidelines

Hi Lucy and all,

I have commented on the draft Enforcement Guidelines in my individual volunteer capacity and would be very happy for WMUK to incorporate my comments into our affiliate response.

The draft Enforcement Guidelines (and the Universal Code of Conduct) fill a much-needed gap in Wikimedia community governance. Currently, volunteer disputes that cannot be resolved amicably at a local project level have no recourse of escalation except with Stewards or WMF Trust & Safety, whose only guiding legal text is the Terms of Use. I strongly support their enactment. That said, I think a few areas of the current draft can be improved further:

The mechanisms of escalation from local project dispute resolution to Wikimedia-wide arbitration, and de-escalation vice versa, ought to be laid down at least in principle if not in detail. This may involve a hierarchy of contact points between local projects and global arbitration. This is not explicitly mentioned in the current draft and as such the guidelines are vulnerable to double jeopardy or forum shopping.
The right to be heard during case proceedings (as contrasted to the right to appeal, after a judgement and sanctions have already been handed down) should be enshrined into the guidelines.
I would like to see the proposed arbitration mechanisms claiming competence (in the legal sense) over cross-wiki content disputes (as related to UCoC policy section 3.3) that cannot be resolved at a local project level.
The guidelines are still in draft but its terminology is already getting unwieldy, e.g. U4C, EDGR, Code Enforcement Officer. These ought to be rationalised to minimise misinterpretation in rollout.

Best regards,

Deryck

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 10:09, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

Dear all

I have been asked by the Wikimedia Foundation to complete a survey about the draft Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. In particular, they are seeking input about whether or not it is necessary to hold a final ratification process with communities and affiliates. The survey also asks us to highlight any concerns about the draft guidelines.

My understanding is that there will be one survey for each affiliate to complete, rather than multiple responses. Given that, I want to make sure that I respond in a way that best reflects the views of UK volunteers and contributors, not just me and the staff team. I have some questions and comments about the guidelines, but moreover I do think that there should be a ratification process involving the people who will be required to formally consent to the Code (who are listed here).

If you are at all interested in/looking forward to/concerned by the introduction of the Universal Code of Conduct, this is an opportunity to express your views. It would therefore be useful to know your thoughts on any or all of the following points, ideally by the end of next week (3rd December):
To what extent you think that the draft Enforcement Guidelines are acceptable
If you have any concerns about the draft guidelines and the recommended processes
If you think there should be a final ratification of the guidelines for communities and affiliates
Please note that these questions are specifically about the draft Enforcement Guidelines, not the Universal Code of Conduct itself.

Thanks and best wishes
Lucy

--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive

Error! Filename not specified.

Wikimedia UK is the national chapter for the global Wikimedia open knowledge movement.
Wikimedia UK is a Registered Charity No.1144513.Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827.
Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Virus-free. www.avg.com