Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct

Archives of this page

---

2019
2020
2021

Late-arriving input

Xeno (WMF) please, the "On-wiki consultations" is from April to May 2021 but appears as "Ongoing". If we discuss these questions, will they be accepted?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Felipe da Fonseca: We can still receive input; however, the sooner the better. The drafting committee will start to meet soon. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) please may you give me a deadline? May it be until 28.05.2020? --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Felipe da Fonseca yes, keep open until 28 May though, please recommend community members to contribute sooner (as soon as possible), since the drafting committee will be starting to meet and discuss right away. The sooner ideas are presented, the more impact ideas will have on their work. We will still of course consider input that arrives later, and will include with the upcoming round-table notes. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) I think the participation will be very low, but I will let they know. The process of creating interest and integrating the wiki.pt community into Meta will take some time.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

And... how do I set a page to translate? Even if we don't translate the log, the other elements must exist in Portuguese.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can mark that page for translation if that’s what you were asking. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) actually I am asking how I mark the page for tradition myself, if I can not, so do it for me, please. How can I be part of the "drafting committee"? We probably won't have many comments, but I can do my personal ones next week.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Felipe da Fonseca: Anyone can format a page per Meta:Internationalization guidelines however you require translation admin rights to actually set things for translation. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that the aplication was open until April 19, 2021, but I was not aware, is it possible to apply late?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not part of the committee selection, however I do not think they can accept additional applications (unfortunately). However, there are still many opportunities to assist the drafting committee's work during a comprehensive community review later this year. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) can you point me to committee selection's page so I can apply to them?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The drafting committee is described here: Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee - as noted, work is already under way. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

There have been no comments so far other than my own. My comment was: "For Global Issues: In my opinion, no decision of any kind, including decisions to withdraw verification tools, should occur apart from the home communities. This kind of decision creates a huge schism between the home communities and the global community (Meta), which appears to the home communities as imposing a will from above, a will, moreover, completely foreign to the home communities. Not that there cannot be external auditing bodies, there must be, but audits must inevitably work with the home communities. For cases that require secrecy, let them work with those in the home communities who are able to work with this information. On dispute resolutions, they should follow what was said before in general: they should first of all contact the home community and work together with them, never, ever, separately."--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Felipe da Fonseca for the translation, I have been following the page. Do you have insight into why there has not been additional engagement? I noticed that you advertised it widely and to some established users. Since we are trying to contact local communities and work together yet in some cases there is silence, so I am trying to better understand each community for the success of this model in future. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Xeno (WMF), I am really interested in helping on this topic, you can see on my user page that this is one of the three focuses of my current work on Wikimedia projects, namely: to strengthen ties between the pt.wiki on the one hand, the Meta-Wiki and the WMF on the other. However, I really don't think this is the right forum for this discussion and I think WMF should open a meshpage with the main communities to discuss this. I am available to help in this model. In any case, I will not miss the opportunity and will try in a few lines to synthesize my opinion and understanding about the subject (whether correct or not, I think this is the general view). Before that, a brief contextualization of what I have been doing....

a) here you will find a proposal from me to open a site only for WMF communities, it was not accepted and rightly so, because the neglect of WMF affairs is so great, that a separate site for such would only make the situation worse (no one would follow the page); b) here, here, here and here you find four attempts of mine to approach, one of them was very successful (there was a lot of debate), one successful (there was some debate) and two completely unsuccessful (no debate).

I will divide my ideas into three focuses, the WMF, the Meta and the Pt.Wiki.

• WMF

1) As I have been expressing myself in several forums, there is a very serious communication problem. One of the things that could help this communication is: today there is not, or I have not come across it yet (which in itself would be a problem) a page that gives an overview of the WMF's work with all its major projects and links to them;

2) I don't know exactly if this is the WMF's or the Meta community's assignment, but never, never, never should the WMF top-down override a decision of the home community (as was tried for example here, there is a more recent case, but as I was absent at the time, I won't comment). Any invalidation of home community decisions should be done in conjunction with the home communities members;

3) there is a complete misallocation of resources... those who work voluntarily for years managing the pt.wiki don't see the money, either because of difficulty of editors asking for resources for their daily administration tasks, lack of information, or whatever.

• Metawiki

The Meta wiki forms a separate community from the home communities, a community that is difficult to access because of its particular internal structure and language. Therefore, more extensive use of mesh design is needed;

• Pt.wiki

We see WMF as something distant that does not contribute anything to us, they just suck our blood. Reasons for this are:

1) WMF only approaches us to ask for money on our behalf (see here);

2) or to dictatorially undo our decisions;

3) we don't get any feedback from the WMF, we do all the work ourselves;

4) we don't see the money and those user groups that do, are not trusted by the community or are unknown;

5) we on the pt.wiki are tired of things being done behind the scenes;

Note: realize that this is a long-standing communication gap that will only change with constant, long-term action.

--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for those other examples of the model working well on pt.wiki, this is heartening. I agree this is straying a little off-topic so feel free to re-connect at my talk page, or I will re-connect at yours =) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) this is not how I think we should do it, continuing the conversation on the discussion pages is the worst possible communicative strategy. We on the pt.wiki (that's always my opinion), are tired of things being done behind the scenes. We need a broad Mesh Design discussion, open for all.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Where would be a good venue to discuss? Ptwiki embassy? (historical) w:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada? FYI, I noticed you posted the EnWiki version on w:en:WP:VPWMF - that's not a well-watched noticeboard, only around 200 viewers and not the place for proposals, which is: w:en:WP:VPR. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with this is to open a discussion in mesh format: see Requests for comment/Closing the gap to and between the base communities. So: WMF open a page on Meta, and the members itself open it in the home communities. If you need help opening a meshpage, I can help on my talk page. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I can only speak for my work: which I am using a similar model - so to understand for future, creating a point on ptwiki is by starting a page like

:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Topic (date) and then transclude to the geral page? Or would I first have to invite local users to say "this is a thing we want to discuss"? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) My suggestion: If you want to start a discussion on pt, post it at: pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral. If you want to start a meshpage, open a page in mesh design in the Meta and a correponding one in: pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral. We are not sure if this will work out, but it is the way I would go today.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) if you need help, let me know.Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter

---

Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

• Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
• 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
• Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
• Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
• Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

Respect for the dead?

Would these sort of remarks [1] be covered by this Code? It's not even worth reporting them in the local project anymore, for a combination of who the person who said it is, and the overall lack of moral standards of the community. Chancellor Gordon (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I as well think it's disrespectful for the thousands of genocide victims in Canada to be called less worthy than a building accident in Florida. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Same topic, though unrelated to the above point: some Australian Aboriginal groups do not like their dead to be mentioned or depicted (photographs etc.). I have seen some sites add "trigger warnings" to such pages. Equinox (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Vote

I look at the 'Timeline' section. I see more than 20 steps. But I do not see the most important - the ratification. Is any kind of vote or any other real confirmation of communities' consent is planned? What is the procedure of proposing and adopting amendments? I am a member of a ruwiki community. We have our policies on conduct. I am not quite happy with everything in it, but at least I can try to democratically change it through polls and votes (and I can). And that is the main reason, why I follow them voluntarily. Here I can't. And no my trusted representative can. Will the Code be legitimate? Dubious. Well, It can be enforced (scheduled for Dec'21). But no legitimacy can ever be gained with force. --Abiyoyo (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Abiyoyo: the question about ratification has been brought up several times in the Roundtable discussions. As we are now waiting for the Drafting Committee to complete the Draft on Enforcement Guideline, everyone is welcome to provide their feedback on this one. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021Read the full newsletter

---

Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

• Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
• Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
• Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
• Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
• Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
• New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
• Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
• Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the gist of UCoC?

Would somebody knowledgeable about this topic be willing to answer some questions. I read the lead and a couple paragraphs and couldn't easily discern this. 1) In plain English, what problem is the UCoC trying to solve? Do some Wikis not have a strong enough harassment policy or something? 2) In plain English, what changes is an experienced editor on enwiki likely to notice after this is implemented? Will there be a different procedure for reporting a certain class of misbehavior? Will something be more strictly enforced? Please ping on replies. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae: A recent interview with Maggie Dennis, (VP of Community Resilience and Sustainability) helps explain the rationale. At a basic level, the goal is to increase the feelings of contributor safety and well-being on the platforms to provide for inclusion. Community Insights surveys help to demonstrate the scope of the issue. Research did show some projects were without written conduct standards (Universal Code of Conduct/Research - Wikipedia, Universal Code of Conduct/Research - Other Wiki projects, Universal Code of Conduct/Initial 2020 Consultations).

For enwiki users, comments from experienced editors have generally pointed out the UCoC seems to be already heavily inspired by existing local policies, so there is a general feeling of not much "change" in terms of the actual expectations, though other concerns were raised (see report).

To the later questions, outlining clear enforcement pathways is the goal of the current phase, and the drafting committee is hard at work on this (see progress). Once the enforcement draft guidelines are released the proposed pathways will be more clear to us.

Hope this answers your questions somewhat. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically the Foundation feels the need to impose some kind of UCoC without anyone outside of the Foundation and its processes really asking for it. There has been quite a lot of resistance, but the Foundation feels the need to press on regardless. Foundation representatives have been asked repeatedly where and when any kind of consensus was built among the active communities to implement any kind of CoC. It was pointed out that off-wiki research has shown that people were praying for a UCoC and the Foundation was merely responding to desperate inquiries. When it was pointed out that the projects and communities that build the foundation for the Foundation (no pun intended) have long established processes to record and voice their concerns and wishes they were met with silence from said representatives. It appears that neither serious inquiry nor input is wanted and the Foundation will push ahead with a UCoC regardless of the communities' wishes. There are numerous examples of where this strategy has failed, but this time it's going to work really well. --Millbart (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC) P.S.: I never faked a sarcasm.

@Millbart: I just want to point out that the UCoC was developed out of "Provide for Safety and Inclusion" recommendation from the three-year Movement Strategy process, which involved Wikimedians from across the globe. It was not something that was created out of a thin air nor be imposed by the Foundation; if you read the recommendation closely, it clearly mandated for the UCoC to be developed "in collaboration with communities" and "with respect to context, existing local policies, as well as enforcement and conflict resolution structures", which is something that the whole process has been about and will continue to be about. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I know that repeating or even pointing these things out for the first time is pointless, but I'll do so anyway, lest people think that the WMF narrative is accurate. Here's what I wrote over a year ago about the composition of the groups that drew up the 'Recommendations': "The strategy core team, made up of WMF employees, created a shortlist of 91 people (from 172) to be part of the working groups. The steering committee then chose 88 of those 91 people to be part of the working groups. So, technically, the WMF didn't choose the members of the working groups, but it directly rejected 47% of applicants, then had another committee accept 97% of the remainder." There was even a WMF statement that the WMF had decided to go ahead with a universal code of conduct before so-called on-wiki consultations about it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thx User:EddieHugh for pointing that out. 👍 ...Sicherlich ^Post 07:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC) yes WMF need the CoC; to "legalize" things like Superprotect and Framban. Thats why they are so eager

And I suspect if there's a lot of community objection to it, it will suddenly become a "legal requirement", but they will be "unable" to tell us what law requires it. Not that that has ever happened before. Seraphimblade (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Übersetzung ist zu 9 % abgeschlossen

Aktuell sind alle Übersetzungen als zu 9 % abgeschlossen markiert. Eventuell durch die Verschiebung? Eventuell wurde aber auch inhaltlich etwas geändert? So nur ersteres zutrifft kann man (jmd. der weiß wie) das Sicherlich schnell fixen, wenn nicht wäre wohl etwas mehr Arbeit die geleistet werden muß ...Sicherlich ^Post 07:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Danke! phab:T287803#7262930 (fixed already, I think) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Lack of punctuation causes confusion

The meaning of the following sentence is obscured by a lack of punctuation: "All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact."

At the very least, a pair of commas or brackets would highlight where the clause in the sentence should be. viz: "All Wikimedians should assume (unless evidence otherwise exists) that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact."

I am sure it is not intended to read like this (my punctuation added): "All Wikimedians should assume, unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact." Unfortunately, the lack of punctuation in the original text makes the reader stumble as they try understand what is meant. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Wording of UCoC on doxing

The current wording surrounding doxing in section 3.1 (Harassment) runs as follows: Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects. As worded, this prohibits users from revealing private information - but it assumes that the person doing it knows that information, and is revealing what they know to be true. Has consideration been given to whether this should explicitly extend to making assertions about someone's private information, whether accurate or not? Could/should it be rephrased to make it clear that insinuating stuff about someone's private information, or speculating about someone's real life identity, is also prohibited? I'm sure the intent is not to require a user to confirm that any doxing is accurate before action can be taken about it, but I'm a bit concerned that that might be how some people interpret it. (See this thread on Commons for some of the background to my concerns.] Girth Summit _(blether) 12:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)