Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 14 days ago by VanArtevelde in topic Help needed
Content deleted Content added
→Gibt es eine Synopse?: new section |
LincolnBot (talk | contribs) m Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 180 days) to Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Archive 1 |
||
| (129 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:LincolnBot/archiveconfig |
|||
== Scope == |
|||
|archive = Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
}}{{Universal Code of Conduct/Talk}} |
|||
== Voting results are in == |
|||
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. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 10:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
This message is ''only'' for people who forgot to add the voting information page to their watchlist. Voting results for the UCOC Enforcement Guidelines have been [[m:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Voting_statistics|published]]. 76% support, 24% oppose. Personally, I'm satisfied with the results. [[User:Adrianmn1110|Adrianmn1110]] ([[User talk:Adrianmn1110|talk]]) 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Agree, UCoC should not apply on enwik, as enwiki can handle itself. [[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone35]] ([[User talk:Rockstone35|talk]]) 10:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I am surprised that there is 24% oppose. We should analyze deeply what things make them say NO with the UCoC. [[User:Alphama|<span style="background:#16BCDA;color:white;border-radius:4px;"> <b>A</b> l p h a m a </span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphama|Talk]]</sup> 10:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Martin Urbanec|Martin Urbanec]] ([[User talk:Martin Urbanec|talk]]) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 21:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*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.[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] ([[User talk:S Marshall|talk]]) 23:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== What is the content of the training and is it public ? == |
|||
== Enforcement by type of violations == |
|||
I am a bit lost regarding the concrete nature of the training. Is there or will there be some material (like online documents, videos, etc.) that will somehow fix the content of the training. Would that material be public ? [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 00:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] ([[User talk:Gnangarra|talk]]) 12:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: OK, I just realized that the training is not yet elaborated. It is something planned. In my view, this is the most important part. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 12:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Help needed == |
||
From point '''3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations''' the text has not been translated in Dutch. I'm willing to give a hand, but the legal American english terms are too complicated to translate on my own. Also because I can't find the basic explanations of the drafting committee. So there's a need for support from some other people, with a more than moderate understanding of the english language and Dutch and American legal terms. Thanks! [[User:VanArtevelde|VanArtevelde]] ([[User talk:VanArtevelde|talk]]) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"See definition on Meta": As the link points to the '''definition on''' Meta, not Meta('s main page?) itself, the linked text should be "definition" or "definition on Meta". The current linking style is discouraged by dewiki and enwiki ([https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verlinken#Klartextlinks], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Piped_link#Transparency]). |
|||
*There is one too many newlines / paragraph breaks between "4.1 Purpose and scope" and "4.2 Selection, membership, and roles". [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I am pinging a recent Dutch translators (@[[User:HanV|HanV]]) in case they are able to help or have any input. At some point, we are hoping to have some of the organization's translators get involved and help out - but that is likely months/years away - and I am not 100% sure if Dutch is a language we have in that system just yet. Thank you both! --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 20:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines#2.1.1 Promoting UCoC awareness|Promoting UCoC awareness]] == |
|||
::I see that 3.1.2 Enforcement guidelines is only partly translated to dutch. If that is an important part of the documentation, i am willing to translated it. At the moment i choose first translating the fuzzy translations, second for the pages that are partly translated and at last for messagegroups that almost translated. Sometimes i translated real old things, but then it is more clear if something changes. |
|||
::Maar om in het Nederlands verder te gaan, het is goed dat een meer officieel stuk door meerdere personen met kennis van die taal wordt gelezen en dat het gebruik van termen in ieder geval consequent is en inhoudelijk gelijk aan het origineel. Het vertalen is lastig omdat je bijvoorbeeld zowel de term UCOC, Universal Code of Conduct als de vertaling Universele Gedragscode wilt gebruiken. Voor de leesbaarheid doe ik dat dan bovenin en gebruik ik later alleen maar Gedragscode. Maar het belangrijkste is natuurlijk om inhoudelijk gelijk te blijven en dan blijf je natuurlijk houden dat het wettelijk anders kan liggen in een land of dat we als vertalers het verkeerd begrijpen. [[User:HanV|HanV]] ([[User talk:HanV|talk]]) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 00:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you, @[[User:HanV|HanV]]! We greatly appreciate your translation efforts. :) --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 16:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you @[[User:GVarnum-WMF|GVarnum-WMF]] and @[[User:HanV|HanV]] for sharing your thoughts and experiences. To me enforcement seems an pretty essential part of the Code, because only by enforcement, in the end the rules can be implemented. Okay, I'll see whether there is time for more people to work on the translation. Again, it would be very helpful when there was a site with background explanations. Keep up, --[[User:VanArtevelde|VanArtevelde]] ([[User talk:VanArtevelde|talk]]) 12:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== 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? [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC) PS: Why don't you call the U4C "interwiki arbcom"? |
|||
: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, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Barkeep49}} So in your opinion all stays the same, also if local praxis don't allow privacy arbcom (only privacy admins etc.)? [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 11:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== 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? [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 04:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== 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?<br /> |
|||
<small><small>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?</small></small><br /> Grüße vom [[User:Sänger|Sänger ♫]]<sup>([[User Talk:Sänger|Reden]])</sup> 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:11, 10 May 2024
 | This page is for discussions related to the page. Please remember to:
Discussion navigation:
Archives: 1 |
Voting results are in
This message is only for people who forgot to add the voting information page to their watchlist. Voting results for the UCOC Enforcement Guidelines have been published. 76% support, 24% oppose. Personally, I'm satisfied with the results. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am surprised that there is 24% oppose. We should analyze deeply what things make them say NO with the UCoC. A l p h a m a Talk 10:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the content of the training and is it public ?
I am a bit lost regarding the concrete nature of the training. Is there or will there be some material (like online documents, videos, etc.) that will somehow fix the content of the training. Would that material be public ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I just realized that the training is not yet elaborated. It is something planned. In my view, this is the most important part. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Help needed
From point 3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations the text has not been translated in Dutch. I'm willing to give a hand, but the legal American english terms are too complicated to translate on my own. Also because I can't find the basic explanations of the drafting committee. So there's a need for support from some other people, with a more than moderate understanding of the english language and Dutch and American legal terms. Thanks! VanArtevelde (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am pinging a recent Dutch translators (@HanV) in case they are able to help or have any input. At some point, we are hoping to have some of the organization's translators get involved and help out - but that is likely months/years away - and I am not 100% sure if Dutch is a language we have in that system just yet. Thank you both! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see that 3.1.2 Enforcement guidelines is only partly translated to dutch. If that is an important part of the documentation, i am willing to translated it. At the moment i choose first translating the fuzzy translations, second for the pages that are partly translated and at last for messagegroups that almost translated. Sometimes i translated real old things, but then it is more clear if something changes.
- Maar om in het Nederlands verder te gaan, het is goed dat een meer officieel stuk door meerdere personen met kennis van die taal wordt gelezen en dat het gebruik van termen in ieder geval consequent is en inhoudelijk gelijk aan het origineel. Het vertalen is lastig omdat je bijvoorbeeld zowel de term UCOC, Universal Code of Conduct als de vertaling Universele Gedragscode wilt gebruiken. Voor de leesbaarheid doe ik dat dan bovenin en gebruik ik later alleen maar Gedragscode. Maar het belangrijkste is natuurlijk om inhoudelijk gelijk te blijven en dan blijf je natuurlijk houden dat het wettelijk anders kan liggen in een land of dat we als vertalers het verkeerd begrijpen. HanV (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @HanV! We greatly appreciate your translation efforts. :) --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @GVarnum-WMF and @HanV for sharing your thoughts and experiences. To me enforcement seems an pretty essential part of the Code, because only by enforcement, in the end the rules can be implemented. Okay, I'll see whether there is time for more people to work on the translation. Again, it would be very helpful when there was a site with background explanations. Keep up, --VanArtevelde (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)