We’d like to provide an update on the work on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. After the conclusion of the community vote on the guidelines in March, the Community Affairs committee (CAC) of the Board asked that several areas of the guidelines be reviewed for improvements before the Board does its final review. These areas were identified based on community discussions and comments provided during the vote. The CAC also requested review of the controversial Note in 3.1 of the UCoC itself.
Once more, a big thank you to all who voted, especially to all who left constructive feedback and comments! The project team is working with the Board to establish a timeline for this work, and will communicate this next month.
Wikimedians have provided many valuable comments together with the vote and in other conversations. Given the size and diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are even more voices out there who can give ideas on how to improve the enforcement guidelines and add even more valuable ideas to the process. To help the Revisions committee identify improvements, input on several questions for the committee’s review is requested. Visit the Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions, Policy text revision discussions) to get your ideas to the Committee - it is very important that viewpoints are heard from different communities before the Committee begins drafting revision proposals.
Thanks for your input. We have separated the three questions into three topics for easier participation and follow-up. They are all still part of the same category.
Looking forward to reading more of your feedback.
Here is a link for the mysterious “controversial Note in 3.1 of the UCoC itself”, the text of which is
Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse “race” and “ethnicity” as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for personal attacks.
thanks. which facebook group is that? if possible, I would be glad to join. if it is not feasible for me to join, due to being aimed at a different geographic region or other group, then that’s totally fine. tagging @Mervat_WMF for their input. thanks.
I thought I read somewhere that the timeline for this revision process would be posted somewhere but I’ve not seen it.
How would it work?
After this commenting period with a mysterious deadline, I assume that review committees (I also assume that there will be two committees, one for the UCoC and the other for the guidelines but I’m not sure) will discuss to come up with new drafts.
Do we have opportunities to express our opinions after the new revised drafts come out?
Or once those committees come up with the new revised drafts, they would be the versions for voting without further modifications?
Could we have clear criteria for approval of the guidelines? I find it pretty frustrating that a vote was taken and the majority is being ignored to review a few points that are not even central to the functioning of the UCoC. Can we suspend these sections for further review and enforce the UCoC now?
The first reference I find to UCoC is in june of 2019, and I fear any participation in this now 3 year long process of creating a universal code of conduct is pointless, as goalposts can always be shifted later.
The community discussion about the Revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines is taking place on this Forum thread.
The newest revision comes as the result of the work of the UCoC EG Revisions Committee which collaborated to revise draft guidelines based on input gathered from the community discussion period from May through July 2022, as well as the community vote that concluded in March 2022.
Read more about what has changed in the new version of the Enforcement Guidelines, get informed about the content of conversation hours, unanswered questions, and issues that are still under debate. Feel free to post your questions, comments and suggestions.