[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Stewards User Group 2022 report

[DerHexer via Wikimedia-l]

Hi all,
Please find the WMSUG 2022 report here.
Highlights have been the creation of an mailinglist for the group (beyond the 
stewards internal lists), a test phase for a decision process among stewards 
and the first participation of the group at a Wikimedia Summit. All of these 
are signs for an increase of internal governance and communications, but there 
are still many steps to be taken. The group, remains unique in its setup as the 
only user group which represents an onwiki user group. 
Best,Martin/DerHexer, co-contact___
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/OUMJDBPSW2K2UI3GJFS3DFTQVTJSIRI5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

[Stella Ng]

Thanks for pointing this out, Chico. I’ve left a comment on the ticket
there.  We appreciate that folks want to move things forward. Currently,
the UCoC is indirectly linked via the link to the Terms of Use, which notifies
all users that they are agreeing to abide by Board resolutions impacting
projects
.
However, adding UCoC links directly is a recommendation in the UCoC
Enforcement Guidelines
,
so it’s best that we revisit this ticket in mid-February after the vote
results are finished.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 3:04 AM William Chan  wrote:

> Hi Chico,
>
> I disagree with your conclusion. The code is conduct is in force but
> there's no universal way of enforcing it. However, some communities which
> had previously been plagued with bad faith actors have already used the
> UCoC as a step towards introducing better governance initiatives.
> Another plus side, the UCoC had discouraged bad faith actors to a point
> where communities can push new initiatives that limit these bad faith
> actors without the fear of disruption from these bad actors.
>
> It is thus, for me, can at least define civility for some communities and
> introduce sanity back to these communities, (read: the Chinese Wikipedia).
>
> Regards,
> William
>
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 03:00 Chico Venancio, 
> wrote:
>
>> Nataliia,
>>
>> Thanks for addressing this issue, I do think your message clarified a lot
>> and moves us forward with some paths and goalposts.
>>
>> I do take objection to this statement, however.
>> > First, the UCoC is being enforced now. Not only does it help guide the
>> Wikimedia Foundation in its current actions (and has since it was adopted
>> by resolution [1]), but multiple communities have referred to it in their
>> own actions. The policy is in place already, and its enforcement by
>> communities is encouraged, there is no expectation that it be delayed until
>> the guidelines for globally approaching the enforcement of the policy are
>> agreed upon.
>>
>> Whatever the board's intentions are, the outcome is the UCoC is delayed
>> until we have enforcement guidelines. Both WMF and communities have acted
>> in this way and we could cite several examples of actions since the UCoC
>> approving resolution a bit over 2 years ago.
>>
>> For a single, very symbolic, example, let me point you in the right
>> direction of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T280886
>>
>> A full 4 months after the resolution, and now 20 months ago, I created a
>> rather simple task add links to the UCoC to all WMF wikis. Code for it was
>> written and it briefly was live before being reverted due to indecision on
>> where the text policy should live. I have called attention to WMF staff to
>> this crucial issue for the past 20 months, and yet we still do not even
>> link to the UCoC in our websites.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Chico Venancio
>>
>> Em qui., 5 de jan. de 2023 às 14:38, Nataliia Tymkiv <
>> ntym...@wikimedia.org> escreveu:
>>
>>> Dear Chico, and Peter, dear all.
>>>
>>> Speaking as the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, I
>>> have a few thoughts. First, the UCoC is being enforced now. Not only does
>>> it help guide the Wikimedia Foundation in its current actions (and has
>>> since it was adopted by resolution [1]), but multiple communities have
>>> referred to it in their own actions. The policy is in place already, and
>>> its enforcement by communities is encouraged, there is no expectation that
>>> it be delayed until the guidelines for globally approaching the enforcement
>>> of the policy are agreed upon.
>>>
>>> You do raise a valid question about the success of the last round of
>>> votes. At that point in time, as at this time, staff had recommended that
>>> we, the Board, review any version that passed a simple majority, but such a
>>> situation was never a guarantee of ratification. We respected the results
>>> of the vote – if communities at large could not support the outcome, we
>>> would not have evaluated it at all – but we were interested not only in
>>> support numbers but in causes of concern. What we noticed last time was
>>> that concerns coalesced around a few specific areas, so we felt the
>>> guidelines would benefit from deeper discussion and exploration of those
>>> specific areas. We wanted to make sure the enforcement guidelines were as
>>> widely understood and supported at their launch as they could be and
>>> greatly appreciate the work the communities have done together with the
>>> volunteer-led revisions drafting committee to explore those areas.
>>>
>>> With this next round of voting, we hope to find that the further
>>> conversations have led to alignment in these few challenging areas.
>>> Ideally, the guidelines will meet with even more support than last time. If
>>> not, if