Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki

Scope

The UCoC has a role as an optional fallback for those projects which don't have their own standards. Attempting to impose it on large, established communities such as English Wikipedia against consensus is just another power grab which will drive away editors. Certes (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, UCoC should not apply on enwik, as enwiki can handle itself. Rockstone35 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100%, allow large wikis a ratification vote. This should be in each wiki's usual format (on en-wiki and I suspect on most others that means a community initiated, written, and closed RFC). If they ratify it, cool, we dotted is and crossed ts. If they don't, we dodge a minefield where communities are asked to abide by/enforce standards that don't have consensus. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that UCoC itself is already approved as a global policy (see foundation:Universal Code of Conduct), and it technically already applies at all Wikimedia wikis. The discussion here is about the enforcement guidelines, rather than UCoC itself. Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been approved by the WMF, which unilaterally asserts the right to override policies "local" to much larger communities such as enwp. It will be interesting to see how that claim works in practice. Certes (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UCOC has not been ratified by the en.wiki community and therefore doesn't have consensus there. I expect they're developing a complete proposal with enforcement mechanisms fully documented before they ask us to ratify it, and I appreciate that. I do trust there won't be an attempt at an end-run around community ratification.S Marshall (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall the WMF, and the BOT, have formally stated that they view phase 1 as approved and not needing community ratification. I did have some very odd discussions with several T&S and Legal staffers on the topic, with some weird statements. This included that no-one had mentioned wanting ratification until the arbcom open letter, and then when provided with the diff during phase 1 consultations, went dark on the topic. But any ratification vote is (formally) purely on the EGs. I also remain unsure why they limited the revisions committee to just working on the enforcement guidelines. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If they omit to hold a ratification RfC, then I'd anticipate the en.wiki community starting its own ratification RfC without them.--S Marshall (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This could happen. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by type of violations

There is nothing directly specifying UCoC violations by WMF staff & contractors, BOT, Working Groups or Committees. While its highly unlikely that people in some of the roles would cause an issue, its only fair that there be some recourse mentioned in this section for those areas. Aka Affcom oversees affiliates but who oversees Affcom, what if the Language committee denies a language because of racism, or a funding committee denies a community/individual without performance of certain actions? The way committees are developing with single regional representatives as the conduit for access, the shift to hybrid event like the Summit where a select few have access has opened the door for corruption. The current layout appears to create a set of untouchables in the movement, further enhancing that potential. There more WMF systems move off wiki the deeper these untouchables are able to cement power. Gnangarra (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnangarra I agree with the general thrust to your point (in fact, both of them - one the level of power of off-wiki committees (this from someone who sits on one) and that some level of conduct route through them (other than internal or the BOT) is beneficial. This will be triply true should a global council come into being. I do however note that the UCOC does specify violations by WMF staffers and the BOT, as they need to specifically affirm it. The pathways for that would logically be wherever the nexus of the issues was.
In line with what I interpret the spirit of your comment to be, I do encourage a tweak so that staffers' conduct can be directly taken to U4C (a "court of first instance") on projects where there isn't an arbcom or equivalent. Making a solo admin block of a staffer on those marginal cases will inherently involve a higher standard than would be applied to others, which shouldn't be the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear thanks and yes that was what I was trying to point out, there is a gap in where to go in the first instance with this cohort of people in these guidelines its focus is solely on community members. Gnangarra (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor syntactical issues

Promoting UCoC awareness

First, of all thank you for your work in removing the most problematic parts. Second I have a suggesting for this section: Why must it always the UCoC, that is linked, if local texts like e.g. de:Wikipedia:Wikiquette exists. Of Course it has not the status of a policy, but it has nice recommendations in it, which are easy to understand. Habitator terrae (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

About the previous version I stated, that the sentence "The privacy of a case should be determined not only by those charged with resolving the case, but also with input from those who raised the initial report." could touch the praxis by the dewiki arbcom, to only have public cases. Do I understand correctly (in the dewiki), that now in cases, where somebody has a need for an arbcom and wants his privacy accepted, this first comes before the U4C, which then checks, whether there are privacy concerns. If yes itself decides the case, if not it is forwarded to the dewiki arbcom? Habitator terrae (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC) PS: Why don't you call the U4C "interwiki arbcom"?[reply]

I am speaking only for myself and not for the revisions committee or any other member of the committee. As the person who came up with the name U4C, I intentionally wanted something other than an arbcom. In my mind the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee should be doing more Coordinating than Arbitrating. And no if someone wants privacy they may continue to use an ArbCom, as long as local policy allows that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: So in your opinion all stays the same, also if local praxis doesn't allow privacy arbcom (only privacy admins etc.)? Habitator terrae (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Habitator terrae in my opinion all stays the same for wikis with well developed processes like enwiki and dewiki. Neither has, based on what I know, any systemic failures which is when the U4C could get involved. I think the enforcement guidelines give communities options about how to allow private reporting. Three options are an arbcom, private reporting to admins, and private reporting to the U4C (or people the U4C delegates that to). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for clarifying. Habitator terrae (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
de-WP offers no standardized process of reporting while maintaining privacy: Oversights have an mail contact, but they are not responsible for resolving conflicts. And de-Arbcom has a rule that an AC-request has to be public (de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Regeln#Anfrageerstellung Das Schiedsgericht muss offen angerufen werden. A rule that was introduce via RfC and cannot be changed easily.) They do offer, that you can send them additonal info via mail, but the request itself has to be public.
Two years ago, someone tried: de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Belästigung Title is just "Arbcom/requests/Harassment( or /Molestation/nuisance)" The complete public description was Because of privacy reasons, all the info was sent to Arbcom via mail ("Aufgrund des Persönlichkeitsschutzes wurden sämtliche Informationen dem SG per E-Mail zugesendet.") This arbcom-request itself caused an immediate shitstorm (de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Archiv/2020#Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Belästigung), leading to the arbcom not dealing with the request. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If de-WP arbcom cannot deal with a case because of privacy issues, some other method will be necessary. Some possibilities come to mind, but basically it is an internal issue at de: and I would not presume to advise them.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming adherence

The new text is a lot better IMO, thank you for revising it. What is the plan for how the listed groups of people will "confirm their adherence to the UCoC"? Is this something yet to be decided or did I miss it somewhere? Legoktm (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gibt es eine Synopse?

Ist ja nett, dass da was überarbeitet wurde, allerdings sollte dann auch alt und neu schön sortiert nebeneinander gestellt werden, damit die Änderungen auch deutlich werden. Was wurde denn wo an welcher Formulierung konkret geändert?
It's nice, that they are revised, but old and new should be made easy comparable side by side, so that the changes can be good evaluated. What was changed with wich concrete sentence where?
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sänger: major changes are available for comparison here. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could the people compiling the comparison table please indicate which text remains the same and which text has changed, by something like font or colour variations, or underlining. Alternatively, would it be acceptable if we do it ourselves? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
major changes - in WMF we trust 😂 👍 ...Sicherlich Post 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they fail to disclose a substantive change, there will be a big reaction. They cannot afford this. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: thanks for your good suggestion, Peter! I definitely agree that it would be helpful to add more distinguishing features to the comparison table. The example that I'm currently thinking to follow is the one we have for early Enforcement Guidelines text changes, which our team should be able to prepare for this page soon. Please let me know if you have an even better suggestion, of course. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RamzyM (WMF): That system looks adequate to me. Perhaps someone else will also comment? Thanks, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the scope of these decisions listed?

From 3.3.3 Appeals: "Appeals are not possible against certain decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department." Could you link to where the scope of these non-appealable decisions is listed or defined please. Certain decisions is excessively vague. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This information should also be covered in Module C2 - Handling appeals, closing cases (UCoC - Appeals): · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also perhaps worth linking to the CRC, assuming it still exists (and will do so post-UCOC?) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I believe you meant to link to Trust and Safety/Case Review Committee. Legoktm (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - this was after I rewrote it once because I tried to link to CAC. But at least that indicates they've not been through a name change (or perhaps they'll stop being interim?) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: This information needs to be in the guidelines, otherwise it violates the principle of certainty. Habitator terrae (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review category 4

The 4th review category (that of right to be heard, and evidentiary rights and interaction with anonymity) is much harder to pick out the changes for. In the major comparison table, it doesn't have a specific section in the way that training and affirmation do.

Something summarizing the changes (even if scattered in several places, and aware that some changes are additions and others are removals) would be appreciated for this. I've talked to several RC members, but that's not a very scalable method. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And/or

This page uses the words "and/or" several times. It would be better to replace it with something else. See And/or in the English Wikipedia. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiarity

This page mentions subsidiarity as a "movement value". If I understand it correctly, it's probably a valid idea. However, the way in which it's mentioned in the document is problematic. "Subsidiarity" doesn't appear in any of the values documents, at least not explicitly. I checked Values/2008 and Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles and it's not there. The sections "Our communities are our biggest asset", "Stewardship", and "Shared power" are perhaps close to it, and I'm not even sure about that.

I've been in the Wikimedia movement since 2004, and I'm quite sure I've never heard this word. It appears only a handful of times in the archives of Wikimedia mailing lists. The page about it on Meta was created by @Sj just a couple of months ago. On other pages on Meta, it appears in many pages about Movement Strategy discussions from recent years, and sure, perhaps I should have made a better effort to follow the Movement Strategy discussions, but the people leading the Strategy process could also make a better effort to make the movement aware of this principle before quietly defining it as a "movement value".

Again, from what I've read about it in the last few days, it's probably a valid idea if I understand it correctly. But please, define this concept more clearly and publicly before basing major decisions on it. Otherwise, it will be just a piece of jargon among a few people on Meta. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

This document mentions ArbCom a few times, and this term even has an entry in the glossary in the end.

The glossary should mention that only a few wikis actually have an ArbCom. Even some of the largest and most active wikis don't have one, for example the Wikipedias in Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew.

Most people in wikis in which an ArbCom doesn't exist don't even know what an ArbCom is.

My suggestion:

  • The glossary should say that it's a body that exists in only some wikis.
  • When the document mentions that the ArbCom should do something, it should also say something like "... if it exists".

Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins to confirm

The document recommends adding the UCoC to the Terms of Use, and also that some people must specifically confirm adherence to it: staff, board members, representatives, and trademark users. So far, so good.

In another section, it says that UCoC training should be given to Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial. This also makes sense, but it puzzles me that the two lists overlap only partly: Advanced Rights Holders are included in the list for training, but not the list for confirmation.

According to the glossary at the bottom, local wiki admins are included in Advanced rights holders. Local wiki admins should also specifically, explicitly confirm the UCoC. For regular editors, inclusion of the UCoC in the Terms of Use is enough, but it's a good idea to get admins to confirm it explicitly. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy_talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines&oldid=237538"