Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct

Archives of this page

---

2019
2020
2021

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)

Is deletionism exempt?

Re: "The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation" I think this reads that if your motive is deletionism you don't need to provide an explanation. I hope that wasn't what was intended. I'm not 100% sure that this was meant to be taken literally. But the word unmotivated could cause some issues here. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Unmotivated removal of content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation is permitted per en:Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks ("Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor") and en:Wikipedia:Vandalism ("Upon discovering vandalism, revert such edits...") Vexations (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

and per en:WP:BLPRS "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion".(emphasis mine) Vexations (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominating something for deletion through a project's appropriate process is neither arbitrary nor unmotivated and does not, in my eyes, seem like any kind of UCoC violation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder why we need to put this in UCoC. And how many people will interpret "[when] without appropriate discussion or providing explanation" as "[when] I don't like the explanation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that this is trying to get at vandalism where people just randomly blank stuff (paragraphs, sections, headers, footers, and such), seemingly on a whim and for nothing but amusement value, but as written it's a terrible description of that, to the extent that it doesn't describe it at all. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

How to handle typos

To go along with the substantive content issues, the lack of community ratification, and unclear wording, is there a preferred mechanism for fixing the various typos?

Normally I'd just be BOLD - anywhere else on Wikipedia, but since that has been Board "ratified", does that still hold up? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@RamzyM (WMF) and Xeno (WMF): - could either of you shed some light? Otherwise I'll just assume that BRD applies until community ratification occurs Nosebagbear (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Nosebagbear: Is it typos on the board-ratified text? Are the typos already mentioned on this page or in archives? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF): assuming that the text on UCOC page is the "ratified" document, then yes. I don't know if they've been discussed on this page. There's a few different categories, such as the bullet points being all over the place with what they use to end (nothing, semicolons, full stops, etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people"

'While 'race' as a meaningful distinction has fortunately (in academia at least) at last been recognised as the self-serving pseudoscientific hogwash it always was, and clearly shouldn't be endorsed, I can't help thinking that whoever decided to include 'ethnicity' in the same statement not only doesn't understand what ethnicity is, but hasn't read the rest of the document, since it uses the terms 'ethnic and cultural background' and 'ethnic groups' in contexts where not recognising the terms as meaningful would be utterly nonsensical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

While the intention behind this declaration might be honorable, it can have some unforseen side-effects. If you google "diabetes south asian uk" you will see that "The risk of developing diabetes is between two to six times higher in SA [the South Asian community] when compared with white Europeans in the UK". Google goes on to list many studies in which this has been demonstrated. As a result Diabetes UK takes pains to ensure that the South Asian community is properly targeted in any publicity campaigns. How does the Wikimedia movement plan to handle this fact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinvl (talk)

That is a perfectly valid point, though not the one I was trying to address, which is a much broader concern. Even as a social construct (which is what it is in most contexts), ethnicity is a real part of people's sense of self-identity, and of people's lives. Lumping it in with 'race' and suggesting it isn't 'meaningful' borders on being offensive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Kaicarver (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Conversations with racial or ethnic supremacists, people who honestly think their group is better than other people, go "You know [division] isn't real, right? [Evidence]". This is a conversation supremacists usually only have with people they perceive as being in their in-group of "superior" people. On the other hand, in conversations among people who regularly face racial and ethnic discrimination, no-one says "not real" or "not meaningful". Suffering systemic discrimination is a real experience, and it means serious constraints on one's life.

As mentioned, systemic discrimination, and cultural differences that correlate with "race" and "ethnicity", create real, statistically verifiable differences between groups. For instance, Black Americans smoke way more menthol cigarettes than other Americans; this is because tobacco companies marketed menthol cigarettes specifically to Black Americans, even giving them away to schoolchildren in Black neighbourhoods (we have the documents). Menthol cigarettes are harder to quit. Arbitrary racial discrimination by tobacco companies causes real health disparities.

The phrasing of this UCC statement is characteristic of white Americans used to talking mostly with other white Americans, and repeatedly explaining to some of them that their racism is stupid and ill-founded. There are still people who believe that their supremacism is scientific and based in biological fact, and it's important to refute them. But it's also important not to deny systemic discrimination. Words like "arbitrary" and "socially-constructed" might do this better. HLHJ (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Place to discuss violations and processes

I have a question: will there be a place on meta to discuss potential UCoC violations, and how these should be addressed across various language wikis? I think this would be very useful for getting answers to questions, exchanging views, getting advice, establishing actual practice based on use cases, etc. In fact, I have what I believe to be a UCoC violation right now, which I believe would be useful to discuss as an example Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Japanese consultation report in 2020

I left questions at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Initial 2020 Consultations/Japanese and would like to get answers from someone familiar with how the report was made. whym (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

these rules

nobody cares about these rules, in fact bully admins never followed any rules. reporting unacceptable behaviours of admins only bring to more harassments and abuses. despite many proofs a bunch of them keep denying everything. Harzakc (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed—I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see hand-wringing on such a scale here, I'm amazed that anything gets done. There must be a balance, somewhere, between editorial chaos and obsessive emotional over-investment in, you know, a website. WP is terrific—but it's a website, guys, not the future of humanity. Get a grip, eh? – AndyFielding (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Erm, overinvestment doesn't have a hyphen. For some reason, the mobile version of WP's editor doesn't let us edit our own posts 🤷‍♂️ [shrug]. I wanted you to know I was paying attention—just not fast enough. – AndyFielding (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Freedom of speech: Vandalism or criticism

Which are Our Values (we accept no less than civility), WMDE–Werte (Wikimedia Deutschland versteht respektvolle Zusammenarbeit als den offenen, partnerschaftlichen und solidarischen Umgang aller Beteiligten miteinander)?

It is inadmissible that - in democratic states - Wikipedia represents a space/an organization beyond the law (Rechtsfreier Raum) where the Fundamental Rights as Freedom of expression (Article 11), Equality before the law (Article 20), Due process of law/Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47), No penalty without law (Article 49) and Right not to be tried or punished twice (Article 50) are not respected.

Freedom of expression and criticism of the officials is an essential element of democracy. No control of power means authoritarianism and dictatorship (see Russia, North Korea or China).

I also miss (as User:Harzakc and Thhhommmasss) a committee of independent and impartial members with no special functions in the Wikipedia Communities, nor in the National Chapters nor in Wikimedia Foundation, with competence to decide in respect of the Wikipedia principles and rules and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This committee should be able to overrule all decisions in case of violation of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

The allegations of Wikipedia:Vandalism or Wikipedia:No personal attacks are very often misused by administrators as a pretext to eliminate critical authors by ban or block. Also Wikipedia:Page blanking and Wikipedia:Content removal are often applied without reasonable arguments disregarding any rules and misused as censorship. For every decision - also for the decisions of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee - users should have the possibility to appeal to an independent and impartial committee.--GF (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

UCoCの草稿を読んで、文化格差を感じる部分

from Japan

A.

参加するグローバルなコミュニティで偏向と偏見を認めないこと。

「この偏向と偏見を認めないこと」という項目には危惧を感じます。『偏見と偏向』は、いったい誰から見た偏見と偏向なのでしょうか。

わかりやすい例として日本の太地町のイルカ漁と、それに反対する欧米の人たちをあげます。 私はなぜ、欧米人があれほど、小さな漁村で昔からイルカ漁をやっている太地町の町民を非難するのか、わかりませんでした。英語圏の人と、機械翻訳をつかって議論したこともあります。まったく話が噛み合いませんでした。

日本人の文学研究者が書いた本を読んで、ようやく腑に落ちました。以下の本です。

「快楽としての動物保護　『シートン動物記』から『ザ・コーヴ』へ (講談社選書メチエ) 」信岡朝子 https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B08KQ645MZ/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_K2S4C7M8PCQBNJS35N27 @amazonJP

上記の本による、 野生動物を殺すことに関しての欧米人の価値観。1.から3.にいくにつれて『悪』または『野蛮』とされるそうですが、本当でしょうか？　

1.紳士のスポーツとしての狩猟（今は違うのかもしれません） 2.人間の生活を守るための駆逐 3.食べるための狩猟（＝野蛮）

これは私には非常な驚きでした。 日本人の私とにとっては、まったく逆だったからです。（1.から3.にいくにつれて『酷い』）

1.食べるための狩猟（＝必要。また殺した動物に対して敬意を持つ。殺さざるを得なかったから、無駄なく食べる） 2.人間の生活を守るための駆逐 3.スポーツとしての狩猟（悪い意味での遊戯。ペットの犬や猫を切り刻んで遊ぶ人のイメージに近い。もちろん、私は犬食文化や猫食文化を持つ人たちを否定しません）

B.

投稿者自身がどう名乗り、どのように自己を紹介するか尊重します。 人々は一定の性的指向もしくは性別を示す独得の名称や代名詞を使うことがあります。

これは理解できます。ただ、性自認によって変化する代名詞は、英語話者（印欧語話者）以外には、ますます英語の理解が難しくなります。 そこをご配慮ください。

C.

記：ここで言う用語「人種」と「民族」人を特徴づける方法として禁じるため加えてあります。ウィキメディア運動は人の特徴付けを禁じます。ウィキメディア運動はこれら用語を人々の峻別に有効なものとして承認せず、個人攻撃の基盤として用いることを禁じるほかの使用はしてはならないと信じます。）

民族紛争などの状況を考えて、おっしゃっているのでしょうか？ 『ある人物の文化的背景』を知るために、民族が重要になる場合も多いと考えます。

D.まとめ 「欧米的、キリスト教的価値観」は、良いものをたくさん含んでいるでしょうし、私たちの価値観にも共通する部分が数多くあります。 ただ、日本人の多くは 「自分の価値観を押し付けるのは良くない」という価値観を持っています。伝道師はうさんくさい人と見られます。 この草稿はあまりにも自分たちの「正しさ」を確信しているように思えます。Kizhiya (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Psychological manipulation

The UCoC's definition of "psychological manipulation" is "Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want."

What if someone genuinely and honestly subscribes to fringe beliefs, or is genuinely unaware they lack competence in the area they've chosen to work in (think Scots Wikipedia)? Surely they will encounter plenty of volunteers who will try to "cause them to doubt their own perceptions, sense, or understanding with the objective to win an argument" ... and "force" them to stop inserting poor material into articles. Is that a bad thing?

As written, this UCoC passage about psychological manipulation can be read to criminalise ordinary debate ... but debate is how the Wikipedia sausage is made. As worded now, this UCoC passage is likely to multiply accusations of "gate-keeping" lobbed against volunteers. There are enough such accusations already, often unjustified; there's no need to provide extra encouragement.

Moreover, the word "maliciously" makes the entire passage completely subjective. Think of Russian Wikipedia in the present circumstances ... you will have people (dis)believing Russian state media and people (dis)believing Western media, each accusing the other of "maliciously" trying to make them "doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding". A passage like this, which every partisan can interpret in the way that suits them best, is not fit for purpose. --Andreas JN466 13:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andreas: Thanks for adding this!

As you may know, I was involved with Scots Wikipedia at the time of the controversy broke out (was even quoted in the linked article). The passage in question seems to focus on issues involving a term more commonly known as gaslighting. I won't go into too much detail as to why I think gaslighting is bad, but I can elaborate if you want.

Wikipedia is an open project, and many things we do on this site are openly logged for the public record. It's pretty transparent and simple to figure out who said what in a conversation. However, that has not stopped people from straight out lying about the contents of diffs or what a source said in order to win an argument. People doing that kind of thing is not something we want to see in this movement.

Using the Scots Wikipedia thing, if someone told AG that they were wrong on specific grammar rules regarding Scots, that wouldn't be malicious in the slightest. I know for the Scots Wikipedia example, AG was not the type of person to block individuals for pointing out they were wrong.

However, as you said, maliciousness is subjective. It requires a certain amount of intent on the part of the bad actor. Well, the ideal of this section is more likely than not meant to avoid restricting good faith debate and discussion (you can't be both in good faith and acting maliciously). There isn't anything to suggest otherwise unless you feel the wiki process is somehow inherently malicious (which I would find doubtful given my above point regarding its transparency).

Could we possibly see this section of the UCoC abused to censor users in projects like Russian/Ukrainian Wikipedia? Yeah, they could very well claim someone on the opposite side was trying to gaslight them about their experiences happening right now during the invasion. Still, they never needed the UCoC to do that. What the UCoC does is set as a baseline that gaslighting is not okay. It doesn't grant anyone any additional rights that they already didn't have.

It's for that reason, I don't think the section is at all harmful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an example of a case where someone was accused of and sanctioned for gaslighting? I have been tracking forms of undesirable behaviour approximately since the conversations about the conversation about the UCoC started and have never seen it. Is this a real problem? Vexations (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The section is a solution in search of a problem. Moreover, it creates a new problem simply by existing – because, going back to the imagined Russian scenario, people will then argue about who is malicious and who is gaslighting whom (I always associate this clause with Framgate ...), rather than talking about content quality and how to neutrally summarise sources. There are perfectly good mechanisms now for sanctioning editors that lie or misrepresent sources, without a "law" that criminalises and further personalises the process whereby people try to change each other's minds. --Andreas JN466 20:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's important that we recognize that, in order to address gaslighting, we would need to establish that the behaviour was motivated by malice. That is an significant hurdle, because you'd need to prove intent. I propose that we avoid or remove any and all direct or implied references to intent, and instead focus on the effect that behaviour has. Simply put, it doesn't matter what you -meant- to do, it matters what harm your actions caused. That approach has the benefit of being value-neutral, which makes it easier for offenders to improve their behaviour and reintegrate into the community. Consider for example the difference between being a racist and saying something that was perceived as racist. Vexations (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vexations: Gaslighting is an incredibly intimate and personal form of psychological abuse. I would be very hard pressed to think of an example of it occurring publically on-wiki. Maybe if this violation was phrased in terms of misrepresentation it would more clearly delineate who would and would not be violating it while also covering gaslighting? I know people have definitely misrepresented facts, events, histories, etc. and that is something I don't think anyone would agree to. However, I could also see that being used against transgender individuals by transphobic/bad actors if the language was not precise enough. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, so we have a clause that addresses a non-problem on Wikimedia projects, that can easily be abused to go after completely legitimate actions by good faith editors. But we're keeping it anyway because we have to trust that the people who are going to enforce it are not going to take it literally, but will interpret it correctly, which requires training that nobody has seen yet? That is reckless. Vexations (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean enforcement would generally be handled by the people who handle local policies right now, and no training has been actually developed yet.
Regardless, I will point out that the Phase 2 drafting committee did not write the UCoC itself. Our scope was with creating enforcement guidelines which are the only thing up for ratification right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that there is a serious disconnect between the drafters of the UCoC and the drafters of the enforcement guidelines if the latter are so reluctant to clearly and unambiguously say what the UCoC means. Regarding the inclusion of gaslighting in the UCoC, the old adage that "hard cases make bad law" comes to mind. It is a terrible idea to use extremely rare problems to create rules that can be enacted against common practices. Vexations (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a serious disconnect. My peers and I just weren't involved with drafting the UCoC is all. The only reason I am reluctant to definitively comment on what different provisions of the UCoC mean is because I don't want people thinking I have some higher authority on the matter. I know as much about the UCoC as you all do, and that's basically what was put forward to the public. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I credit @MJL: for being careful not to issue binding declarations on UCOC#1 meanings - would you prefer MJL guess? A better pair of questions regarding clarity would be 1) do you think phase 1 and/or phase 2 have clarity issues (that is, are any of the clarity-asking qs valid?) and 2) Is it wise to vote to ratify policy text that is unclear where if it turns out you defined it wrong, it'll be a year until you can fix it? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Are those questions for me? You pinged me, but you seem to be responding to Vexations here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MJL:, I pinged you because I was mentioning you (when I'm off someone's home wiki I try to default to pinging someone, as I at least check my meta watchlist more rarely, and I don't want to risk a "talk behind their back" position). The questions are more general, although you would be one of the key individuals I'd love to know your answers to them (I assume you back the general content, but I know you're aware of differing interpretations on some key points). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am just sort of barging in here but I want to mention this quickly. I know Andreas but don't think poorly of him for knowing someone like me. First, consider removing the word "punishment" from the UCOC and uses a less frightening synonym if that hasn't been done already. Secondly, regarding the gaslighting, I strenuously agree with what Vexations said on 15:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC) and what Jayen466 said on 20:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC). This entire UCOC thing is so nebulous (especially given that the training of enforcers hasn't been worked out yet) that I am afraid it will be used to bludgeon dissent. Dissent of any sort! In the external, non-wiki world, there is an awful lot of that now. Please be careful not to let it enter here. I think that an example of gaslighting might be what I experienced on the English Wikipedia discussion of making the entry for God use an in-universe character infobox. I was repeatedly rebuked while having Abraham referred to as 'Abie' which could be a sort of gaslighting to make me question or doubt my Jewish faith. While I found it extremely rude and obnoxious, I have chosen not to consider it to be psychological manipulation. I don't like the behavior of the three editors who tag teamed me, and it was humiliating and embarrassing to be belittled, but that situation is something that ANI could handle without needing anything additional from this or any other form of a UCOC. I'd rather have arrogant and abrasive editors SHOUT at me (which they did) than stifle dissent with enforcement.--FeralOink (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@FeralOink: I'd love to respond to this in full, but first things first... the word "punishment" isn't in the UCoC. It was in the code enforcement guidelines for a hot second, but that was fixed almost immediately after it was pointed out.
It's really important not to mix the two documents up. One of them is being decided for ratification right now by the community (the enforcement guidelines), and the other (the UCoC itself) has not been opened up for community review (and has never been voted on by the community). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I apologize. I am confused about all of this. I shouldn't even be here on Meta Wiki (and making comments) prior to having a better understanding of the difference between the UCoC and the "enforcement guidelines". I didn't realize that they were two separate documents.--FeralOink (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@FeralOink: All good, and don't let that stop you from making comments. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the discussion on "psychological manipulation." I agree that it would be better to evaluate users based on their actual behavior instead of making assumptions about their intentions. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU)Should the UCoC be amended to make that change? Vexations (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vexations Yes. Instead of "Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want", we could continue the parallel structure of the previous points and state something like "Abuse of knowledge: Overwhelming another user with jargon and overstating the surety of one's arguments" (with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want). Sometimes people have terrible, incorrect ideas and other users should use all of their rhetorical tools to persuade them to relinquish those views. But even if someone tenaciously holds to an idea we deem incorrect, it's still more polite (and more persuasive) to avoid infodumping on them. I also think that "Maliciously causing someone to doubt[...]" is far too vague. What kind of behavior, exactly, are we trying to prevent with this? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have ever created or published a good taxonomy of which behaviours the community finds problematic, which harms they cause, their frequency and severity as well as a definition, and the policies that prevent and remedy problematic behaviour. I think that having such a thing is requirement for any discussion about the UCoC. Let's start over and build that first. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vexations: I mean... There's nothing saying we couldn't try to build such a list ourselves. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been trying to build one over the last year or so, tracking cases of inappropriate behaviour that I see. What I have is probably a bit too casual, and more for my own insight, but my suggestion would be to take a similar approach; record incidents, where it was reported, how it was remedied, what type of problem it was, what type of harm it caused, etc. Make sure each behaviour has a definition, a link to an applicable policy and a specific reference to a paragraph in the UCoC. Group the behaviours by class and subclass. Then run a query on the database to see which classes of behaviours are both frequent and serious enough to be addressed. Vexations (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake—that should be en:Gaslight (1940 film). (For some reason, the mobile version of WP's editor doesn't let us edit our own posts.) AndyFielding (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sigh—the correct WP page actually is "Gaslight (1944 film)"—which I'm putting in quotes this time, as embedded links to it apparently don't work [shrug]. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

de:Gaslicht (1940) would a well be fine, for an international, not just english, community as here probably d:Q5526486 would be the best, as there are seven language versions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Am I misreading this?

To me, the doxing section implies that I cannot even share information about another editor with ARBCOM without said editor's consent. I really hope that's not what's meant here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that you need to share with Arbocom strictly personal data of a user. Arbcom is qualified to make decisions about users behaviours or point of views, not age, religion, email, personal name...--Pierpao (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by strictly personal data. DOB, religion, address, or ethnicity, I can't ever see a reason to share. Name, IDs on other platforms, websites not linked from Wikipedia, evidence of employment, and so many other less personal but still private information is often used when examining disruptive behavior. Twitter, for instance, is frequently used to spur disruptive editing. Dealing with it requires sharing some information. On en.wiki, that's often sent to ARBCOM or some other group with advanced permissions via email. Is that being prohibited here? It isn't clear to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's indeed what the letter of the UCoC says. It also forbids people from discussing another person's edits on Twitter, Facebook's Wikipedia Weekly group, Wikipediocracy, your local pub, with your husband or wife ... anywhere really. I suspect that may not have been the intention – perhaps they meant to forbid people from tweeting "User:WikipediaStar is really called Joe Bloggs, and he edits the article on Topic X" – but what they ended up doing was forbidding any off-project discussion of anyone's Wikipedia edits altogether. (That includes you, User:MJL, talking to the Guardian about another contributor's Wikimedia activity ... I hope you obtained his consent first!) --Andreas JN466 11:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Just one day before the opening of this new section the archive bot archived this one, that asked the same questions, and as well got no meaningful answer of one of those who push this.

I don't expect any answer by any (WMF)er about this, they just want more power over the communities, that's the main reason for the UCoC, and especially the enforcement of it, that is planned in a star chamber style without a meaningful process of open resolutions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

High quality aggregation and generalisation there, Sanger, I can't imagine why anyone would be reticent to engage in discourse Nosebagbear (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So why don't they answer any of those questions? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't imagine it either, but the people who wrote the UCoC have been almost entirely absent from the discussions. They appear completely unaccountable. I find that really problematic. I bet that most people don't even know who they are. Vexations (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I sure don't know who they are...I just edit stuff and the notice I saw today was the first I had heard about any of this "UCoC". So who did write this document/law again?... Shearonink (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The drafters of the UCoC are listed at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee. Vexations (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think User:MJL, who commented in the section above, actually was part of the drafting committee (and should be commended for showing their head above the parapet!!). Maybe they'll weigh in further. --Andreas JN466 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've only been able to communicate with 3 of the phase 2 members, including MJL, Vermont, and BK49. We've not had any panel attendance in the last 3 meetings about the UCOC. In this case, however, we want a member of the phase 1 team Nosebagbear (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wary of commenting publicly on UCoC document itself since I don't have any special insight into it. #Psychological manipulation was the first time I posted here, and that was because the post mentioned a specific point in the history of Scots Wikipedia which I felt compelled to talk about seeing as I was an admin there at the time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be possible for a Wikimedian to say "yes it is fine to use that photograph from Wikimedia Commons in your magazine, but you need to credit the photographer commons:user:WereSpielChequers and licence that image as CC-BY-SA". The UCOC should be changed to prohibit doxxing of Wikimedians, not discussion of Wikimedians. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Um, yes. I've done that (though not, I think, for WereSpielChequers). HLHJ (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Taken literally, a prohibition on "sharing information concerning [another contributor's] Wikimedia activity outside the projects" would ban sharing it even with their explicit permission. It would prevent a lot of the conversation at Wikimania conferences, including questions and discussion for a lot of the public talks. It would prevent off-wiki discussion of, say, Rémi Mathis's run-in with French intelligence, which was a perfectly legitimate thing for the French news media to cover and other contributors to talk to the media about (the publicity was indeed what got him out of that nasty situation). If a journalist, or a friend, asks me what has been happening on Wikipedia relative to the recent changes in Russian law, do I really need to say say that I am obliged not to comment on that because I edit Wikipedia? I've had to deal with assorted lobbyists on Wikipedia, including some paid editors from Phillip Morris; am I to be prohibited from mentioning that to anyone off-wiki? If a fellow contributor dies and I am sad, do I need to refuse to tell my family why? We should to qualify this ban more. Sharing publicly-available information in good faith, with no reason to think that sharing it would be objectionable, or with a legitimate public interest in the information, need not be doxing. It may sometimes be necessary to protect contributors, and the project. HLHJ (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.

Just as an historical/semantic note, this describes what was in the 20th century referred to as gaslighting—see Gaslight (1944 film). – AndyFielding (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This ain't the enWP, enWP is just one of many projects, and anything but the navel of the Wikiverse, it's far too much represented here, as unfortunately with English as the most used language here the users from over there are usually quite dominating, without any merit for this. Of course you have to first tell those links, in what language version the article is written, here perhaps de:Gaslicht (1940), there is of course no article about movies here on Meta. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Updates on Inputs Received regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the Enforcement Outline

Hello Everyone!

We continue to thank all those who are engaging in the UCoC policy conversations in different locations and forums. These conversations are important because they help communities, and individuals, to discuss and gain a deeper understanding of the contents of the policy, and the enforcement pathways.

At this time, the Foundation is not facilitating discussions on the policy itself as we are focused on supporting the community review and vote of the Enforcement Guidelines. However, we will be happy to support more conversations about the policy through a facilitated policy review process one year after the enforcement guidelines have been ratified. This does not mean that the community conversations taking place should stop; rather, they will form a strong base for the discussions that will take place when the policy review period commences.

We appreciate the interest in hearing the thoughts and opinions of the drafters on certain elements and clauses. While this is reasonable and we certainly do not discourage the drafters from joining as they please, our focus in the next phase will be on the impact of the passages, how to refine certain areas, and how to continue developing the policy. Towards this, the input of each and every one of us, especially on the enforcement pathways, is extremely crucial. This will help us to highlight the areas of concern which can then be addressed after the conclusion of the voting period.

To avoid discussions from being archived prematurely, we have disabled the auto-archiving on this page. The project team will formally collate discussions here, and in the archives, to launch an informed review process in the future.

Best,

Stella Ng

Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy

SNg (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I should note here, that we were notified that the UCOC would have its review discussion period one year after the UCOC was ratified - which the BOT states it did some months back. Changing it to after the EG is ratified is a fairly substantial unilateral decision beyond the remit of anyone short of agreement between both Community and WMF. Were it not having any appreciable aspects warranting change or clarity identified, then it would indeed make more sense to wait until it had had a chance to be seen in action. However, without that being the case, we should make use of the opportunity to improve it - waiting arbitrary units of time when a flaw is identified before working to excise or improve it is counter to the Wiki Way.

While both the BOT and U4C can submit amendments (and, when in existence, the latter certainly should and indeed is tasked to do so), it's not a requirement - anyone can do so, as no amendment prohibitions are included in either document, although in practical terms I'd suggest having at least three dozen signatories or a local project RfC as the minimum demonstration of support to kick it into the area. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Kind of disturbing to be asked to ratify something and then wait for a year before any discussion or improvements to it are allowed. Seems autocratic, which Wikipedia is not. In other words, agree with Nosebagbear.--FeralOink (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@FeralOink: You are not being asked to ratify the UCoC; just the enforcement guidelines. The confusion is understandable, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a distinction without a difference as the community was never given a chance to ratify or not ratify the UCoC itself, separately from the Enforcement Guidelines, and voting for the latter makes the former actionable. For this reason I actually think Feral's assessment is more clear-eyed than yours. Andreas JN466 07:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Shrug I'm not making an assessment of the situation; I'm just clarifying what the ratification vote is for. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

+1. Please imagine any politician or political party doing this: unilaterally formulating a bad law, and then saying that the law can only be changed one year after the people vote in favour of guidelines defining how that bad law will be enforced on them. In which kind of state would this sort of thing fly, do you think? Or put another way, which Western democracy would this fly in? It's kafkaesque. I am reminded of a w:Tony Benn quote: ‘In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person, ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.’ (For reference, Tony Benn was a British Labour (centre-left) politician ... the nearest equivalent in the States might perhaps be someone like Bernie Sanders.) In this spirit: How can we get rid of you? --Andreas JN466 16:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Very good question. Taking into account that Trust & Safety looks back upon a long history of wrong decisions, is there any chance that we can get rid of this team? To be sure, we need a team for Community Issues but certainly not a team acting like Trust & Safety.-- Mautpreller (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Stella. I find the debate + anxiety about what it means to have staggered {draft - implement - review - redraft} cycles interesting, as it is a very common practice in most forms of governance. It highlights how effectively we've managed some sorts of continuous-update processes [better than traditional models] and also how in other areas community processes stop being modifiable at all. MJL + @Nosebagbear:: I don't see any reason not to develop specific changes as soon as they arise. The slowness of the current era of multilingual all-project RFCs means that takes a few months, minimum. Easy enough to plan for those to be done at a fixed time (at least those few months but no more than a year out), and in the interim to have a page on "implementation notes + feedback" covering broadly supported changes, clarifications, notes of ambiguities currently left to the discretion of implementers but that might be disambiguated, the inverse (things overspecified that might want contextual leeway), &c. –SJ talk  16:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Language Fluency

Just as an example of what seems to me a breach of this code, the WMF currently has a job ad that includes the phrase "Fluency in at least one other language in addition to mandatory professional competency in English." In my view language skils are things we should encourage and welcome, and the code would be better if it differentiated between multi lingual projects like commons where we don't want discrimination by language fluency and we want to be open to all, regardlesss of which language(s) they know; But enabled our those of our projects that are language specific, such as the 300 or so language versions of Wikipedia, to require fluency in the language of that project to fully participate in that project. Remember what happened to the Scots Wikipedia when it had insufficient speakers of Scots? But "The Universal Code of Conduct applies equally to all Wikimedians without any exceptions" and language fluency, like age and career path, is one of those things that we are likely to want to discriminate about. I've given the example of job ads, but steward elections are another area where our normal and in my view sensible practice is to prefer candidates who are legal adults. As well as being either multilingual or having skills in languages that we most need Stewards and global sysops for. I've voted against the current version of the code because of the mistake in treating skills such as language fluency in the same category as people's gender, sexual orientation, class or ethnicity. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Geht es bei dem Jobangebot nur um Veranstaltungen in englischsprachigen Ländern? Ein halbwegs gutes Englisch sollte natürlich vorhanden sein, das ist es aber heutzutage in fast allen Ländern. Viel wichtiger als Englisch ist, insbesondere bei einem Veranstaltungsmanagement, allerdings mindestens zwei bis drei weitere Sprachen, professionelles Englisch ist definitiv nicht notwendig. Nur Englisch ist allerdings ein glasklares Ausschlusskriterium, derartig sprachliche Schmalspurleute sind in unserem Wikiversum nicht wirklich sinnvoll.

Englisch ist viel zu zentral im Wikiversum, vollkommen überbewertet und von viel zu vielen als viel zu selbstverständlich vorausgesetzt, Englisch ist nur eine Sprache unter vielen, mehr nicht. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I see this as a side effect of our over corporate centralised structure. The more we devolve to language based communities the less important English would be. But as long as the WMF has a strategy of running the organisation in a hierarchical and over centralised way, one side effect will be that English dominates. At the heart of the problem is the clash between the decentralised nature of the volunteer side of things, with a different wiki for each language in most projects, and the WMF vision. I see the UCOC as part of a centralisation project by the WMF, centralising on a set of values that largely acccords with my own. I suspect that it would be less toxic if it was combined with a move to decentralise the movement. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with WereSpielChequers and include religion in the list, i.e. "treating skills such as language fluency in the same category as people's gender, sexual orientation, class or ethnicity" or religion.--FeralOink (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Religious opinion is an awkward issue, but I think it should be in the code. However, For over a decade the English language Wikipedia had restrictions on editing by one particular religion after a particular Arbcom case after proponents of that religion had tried to control what Wikipedia says about their religion. Our right to cover religions from a perspective outside of that religion needs to be defended. That said, I'm perfectly OK with not serving pork at a multicultural inclusive event, or at least having multiple non pork options (about a decade ago I was at a Wikimania where there were multiple pork choices to eat, which was lovely for me but very limiting for many others). I'm even OK with trying to schedule events so that we don't always clash with particular religious holidays. But I don't think it practical to try and schedule Wikimania so as never to clash with any religion's major festivals - I doubt there is a date that works for everyone, and we need to be able to pick dates that work for the vast majority of attendees. Similarly if you employed someone as "community liaison" in the UK and I suspect some other countries, it would be difficult if they weren't prepared to attend an event where some others were drinking alcohol. A few jobs in the movement will require attendance on some Saturdays and Sundays, and it should not be a breach of our protection of religious opinion policy to recruit people who can take such jobs. So we need a paragraph or two to say what is or is not allowed here. We obviously can't have something as simple as the Freemason's "no discussion of religion or politics" because Wikipedia covers such areas, and not from the perspective of the organisation's concerned. So that makes things difficult, and I see the code as merely acknowledging that this is, and will continue to be, a complicated area for the movement. If the code were still a draft, and if the WMF had responded better to past years of criticisms of the UCOC, then I wouldn't be voting oppose at this stage. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is just another example of how poorly written the UCoC is. The relevant paragraph is In all Wikimedia projects [..] behaviour will be founded in respect[..]. This applies to all contributors [..] without expectations based on [..] language fluency [..]. It doesn't say anything about protecting some classes of people against discrimination, it just vaguely hints at the fact that you may be sanctioned if you point out that I ought to limit my contributions to areas where I am competent, in a language that I speak. The authors of the UCoC probably meant something else, but I have given up all hope that they might reappear to provide clarification. Vexations (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Phase 1 members need to provide clarity, urgently

As there are a number of clarity issues that have been asked since phase 1 concluded, but especially over the last 8 weeks, I'm pinging the volunteer members of the phase 1 committee @Civvi, ProtoplasmaKid, RachelWex, Sami Mlouhi, and Uzoma Ozurumba: - please take a look at this talk page and the enforcement guideline talk page to see which questions you can help clarify (the latter has some phase 1 specific queries) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant to ping @Civvì: in stead of Civvi. Vexations (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, apologies to both! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nosebagbear: is it worth compiling the unanswered Qs that remain? –SJ talk  18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sj it could be, as well as some relevant procedural ones.

I assume adding a "/" to my name was accidental, even though it gives a nice piratical "Nosebag-be/arrrgghh" vibe Nosebagbear (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

😂 yes. keyboard quirkiness. I'm not clear on what's addressed and not so far. How about a persistent section here to keep track, one line per Q, that we try not to archive? Starting one below as a subsection; feel free to move up a level + fill out. I don't think it needs to include rhetorical or fringe Qs. Answered Qs can move to the FAQ if persistently useful. –SJ talk  15:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Open Questions

Phase 1 Qs

Procedural Qs

Qs about the future

Etiquette

What's wrong with The Universal Etiquette and The English Wikipedia's Etiquette? Will they be replaced with the Universal Code of Conduct or will all of them be enforced at the same time? Wouldn't it be better to discuss and vote separately adding/ removing/ modifying particular Etiquette's principles? Grillofrances (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Voting rules

How will it be determined whether the Universal Code of Conduct should be ratified? Will it need a majority (excluding neutral votes) or a larger margin e.g. 60%? Will it also require something like a majority in 80% of all the projects and/or a majority in all of the 10 most popular projects? I mean to avoid a situation when English+ Spanish+ French+ German (+ something) Wikipedia users dictate rules which will apply to all of the projects e.g. Silesian Wikipedia, and Finnish WikiNews, and Czech WikiSpecies etc. Grillofrances (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Grillofrances: - the WMF, I believe (though am not certain) the T&S policy team, decided that it's a 50%+1 vote.

To me, and others, this was unwise, as a very clear majority of editors uses either consensus or supermajority voting for significant policy changes. A few do use 50%+1, but it's uncommon. It's also a pure majority of voting editors, rather than project bases. Other options had been proposed, such as a majority of editors, home projects, and affiliates, but I believe the system was selected on the basis of system simplicity. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Grillofrances: The UCoC has already been ratified, by the WMF board. The community is only able to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines; it can neither ratify, reject nor change the UCoC itself. Moreover, if you read Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voter_information#How_will_the_voting_outcome_be_determined?, you'll find that a "no" vote here does not mean what you may think it means. If the "no" votes exceed 50%, then the enforcement guidelines are reworded and the vote is held again and again until the guidelines pass. And note that only the enforcement guidelines will be reworded; the UCoC itself is cast in stone for at least another year, with the next UCoC wording review only allowed to take place at least one year after the community ratifies the enforcement guidelines. (To be clear, I consider this a perverse situation and have voted "no".) --Andreas JN466 10:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Practice empathy"

How can we verify whether a given user practices empathy? Will we hire a psychologist or will we use a lie detector? What if somebody thinks that he/she practices empathy but in fact, he/she doesn't? Or what if that person in fact practices empathy but at the same time, other people consider that person's behavior as a lack of empathy? And how to practice empathy towards a bot which itself doesn't have any feelings? Grillofrances (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sexual harassment"

Is it a sexual harassment when a user proposes a date to another user? I mean only a proposal, with neither any threat (towards the proposee or the proposee's relatives or the proposer - meaning a self-harm) nor stocking (but just a one-time offer) nor when the proposer is an adult while the proposee is a child. Though on the other hand, such a proposal might be with a large age difference (e.g. 20 years old towards an 80 years old or vice versa), or contrary to the proposee's sexual orientation (e.g. a homosexual man proposing to a straight man or a straight man proposing to a lesbian or a straight man proposing to an asexual woman), or when the proposee has already a partner (and doesn't practice polyamory), or when the proposee has promised to live in celibacy, or when the proposer is excluded by any proposee's norms (e.g. regarding religion, or political views, or job, or financial status, or physical appearance). What if the proposer thinks that he/she proposes to another adult but the proposee is a child (because the proposee's account is fully anonymous)? What if the proposal isn't about any type of sexual relation or even dating (which only includes a possibility of sexual relations but not necessarily) but only a casual meeting to get know each other, maybe even to discuss about something wiki-related in a real place and/or edit wiki together? What if an experienced user arranges a workshop in a real place, where he/she wants to invite junior wiki users? Grillofrances (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You are massively overthinking this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How can I log in and vote?

On the https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1341 page, I'm logged out. I'm not able to log in, even typing correct credentials (no matter whether I use "Grillofrances" or "grillofrances" - both with the password which works correctly for various wiki projects). Even trying to reset password there doesn't work - I haven't received any email (I've checked spam). As I remember, I did have a similar problem when voting to WMF Board of Trustees, and I don't remember exactly how I resolved that problem (probably I did some magic, logging in and out multiple times for various wiki projects).Grillofrances (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The previous time this happened was w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 192#cannot log in to Wikimedia. Does the solution from there not work? * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Grillofrances: By design no need to be logged on there, please try to jump to votewiki while logged into any local wiki. Here is the jump page from Meta-wiki: m:special:SecurePoll/vote/391. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. Now, every time, it works. However, previously, when I tried to vote at https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1341, it showed me that I need to log in in order to vote, if I remember correctly. Grillofrances (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Grillofrances: That makes sense - there's some kind of "handshake" that has to happen first from the jump page. Just FYI, only the very last vote and comment you leave will go into the tally and be viewable. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

TLDR Needed

I just want to know before voting how this actually changes anything. At least on en.wiki, I thought we have had standards of civility in place at least since back when I edited regularly from 2005-2009. Does this really change anything? Unschool (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Unschool: Hello, FYI: Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines#Enforcement_guidelines_summary and Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ. SCP-2000 08:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Unschool: The UCoC (which was never ratified by the community) is formulated in such a sweeping and/or subjective way that, as written, it criminalises completely normal forms of behaviour (see above, e.g.). Laws that criminalise normal behaviour, so anyone can be argued to be guilty of something, are a great enabler of corruption in autocratic regimes, leading to double standards and arbitrary punishments at the discretion of those in charge. --Andreas JN466 10:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry there seems to be such a pressing need for something like a UCoC here. Personally, I come here to enjoy making common-sense, helpful-seeming suggestions (e.g. for plainer language, avoiding ambiguity, conformity with widely applied style) out of a desire to freely share my copyediting experience without seeking approval or approbation (though I did enjoy receiving a Barnstar™ a while back), and to help make WP more consistent and comprehensible for everyone. I don't read comments on my edits, or am otherwise egotistically invested in them, which would contradict my reasons for being here. If only more of us could take this sort of constructive, stimulating, non-defensive, other-focused approach, and not take it quite so seriously (and, I'm guessing, maybe get out into the non-virtual world a bit more…?), perhaps such serpentine interdiction wouldn't be necessary. Cheers, AndyFielding (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't add the link of result page

Hey. I am a Japanese Wikipedian and I have voted.

However, I didn't know how to see the results. The reason was the unableness of translating the message "The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has now concluded. Results will be posted here when they are available.". Thus, Japanese people can't reach to the result page.

Is there anyone who can manage this problem? --Sethemhat (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sethemhat: Thank you for notifying me. Is it because Template:Universal Code of Conduct/Header needs to be updated? (@User:YShibata (WMF)) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks @Xeno (WMF) for letting me notice. @Sethemhat, you read the ja, "投票結果発表(3月31日まで精査)" I poste at Wikipedia:お知らせ here has the links to "投票の報告" & "投票結果発表(3月31日まで精査)" YShibata (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF), the situation was exactly what you said. The problem was the untranslated announcements.

But this time, I confirmed that YShibata (WMF)-san has translated the announcement into Japanese. If I knew what was the problem, I could have translated it. The translating system was a bit confusing to me. I couldn't reach the page of Template:Universal Code of Conduct/Header by pushing "Translate" button...

Anyway, Japanese people became able to check the results. Thank you.--Sethemhat (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sethemhat, thank you for trying to translate it.I try to update things in time, but sometimes I can't catch up, sorry. YShibata (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)