Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct

Archives of this page

---

2019
2020

Doxing

It seems to me that doxing clause basically forbids public paid editing investigations of any kind. It was like that on English Wikipedia for significant amount of time, but not all projects agree with such baseline. Also, per foundation:Privacy policy it is allowed for Wikimedia staff or "particular users with certain administrative rights" to "share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies". Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikimedia terms of use, so Privacy policy allows forced disclosure in such cases while current UCoC draft does not. I think it's a serious flaw and should be amended in the UCoC. Another unclear point here is when an editor is a subject of an article and there is a reliable source confirming that this person is a specific Wikipedia editor, but editor himself hasn't consent to publishing this information in-wiki. Does the UCoC forbid to use this source in an article about this person? Adamant.pwn (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Another flaw in the total prohibition of "doxing" is where EditorA causes EditorB so much harm that EditorB sees fit to sue EditorA in a court of law where he can obtain financial compensation for the harm done. (Wikimedia can permanently block EditorA, but is almost powerless to prevent EditorA spawning sockpuppets and certainly cannot award EditorB damages. In order to go to court, it is necessary for EditorB to give the court EditorA's name and address which, according to Wikimedia's rules, is prohibited (See for example the fictitious example given in en:Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats). Martinvl (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In my understanding the prohibition of "Disclosure of personal data" AKA "Doxing" primarily prohibits edits and creation of new pages with contents like "Ashley Example, 11 years old, phone 001 987 1234567, attends class 4e at Closed School in Nowherebourg TX, and is very gay." I have deleted or hidden a large amount of such edits at SV wiktionary, so this is a real problem. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: That may well be the case, but the letter of CoC goes a lot further. I am pointing out a possible unintended consequence of such a general prohibition without a caveat regarding the process of law, bearing in mind that the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to the Law of the United States and the Law of the State of California. Furthermore, there are many moves in both the UK and the EU to clamp down on the social media giants (and under their definition, Wikipedia is regarded as "social media") and depending on what they come up with, Jimbo, who lives in London, could potentially find himself in the firing line. Martinvl (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is Phase 2?

The Phase 2 was supposed to happen between September and December of this year. We're reaching the end of the year, so what is happening to Phase 2? George Ho (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well hopefully the UCoC gets cancelled, since the only response that anyone seems to be interested in giving to serious concerns that "communities might be downtrodden or oppressed" by this forced Universal Code of Conduct is "B-b-but if this Code isn't forced upon every Wikimedia project, the reverse might happen!" So... what does that mean exactly? Is it the Wikimedia Foundation's contention that oppressing and/or treading down on communities is acceptable, because it will supposedly prevent certain communities from potentially oppressing and/or treading down on certain individual Wikimedians?

What kind of justification is that? Sounds suspiciously close to an argument of "two wrongs make a right" to me.

Incidentally, people are discussing this Universal Code of Conduct as if all Wikimedia projects have agreed upon it. They have not. Not even close. And that is precisely why there is criticism. Perhaps some folks have the mistaken notion that if some poobah (or poobahs) declare(s) something obligatory, then the thing in question is suddenly "agreed upon" and "has consensus". That is incorrect. Unless the communities a͟c͟t͟u͟a͟l͟l͟y͟ a͟g͟r͟e͟e͟ on acceptance of the Universal Code of Conduct, then all that it is is an arbitrary bunch of commands forced upon projects by the Wikimedia Foundation under threat of site bans, project closure, etc.

If Wikipedia (because that is what most of this is about, let us be honest here) is so far gone that it does not even care much about consensus any longer unless consensus sides with the desires of a group of ivory tower overseers, then it might be best that a totally unrelated community project that actually respects people (of numerous different views and beliefs [some strongly conflicting and at odds!], not just those of a contemporary orthodoxy) pops up and replaces it. I do not know how that would happen nowadays, given that Wikipedia is so large and influential. But if this Universal Code of Conduct is forcibly implemented Wikimedia-project-wide, and/or if the approach taken with the Universal Code of Conduct here is to be taken as a sign of how things are going to progress and how decisions are going to be made from here on in, I sincerely hope that Wikipedia loses its standing in the minds of the public, and a more worthy project replaces it. Unlikely, but it would certainly be poetic justice if it occurred.

If there is one thing that I have learnt, though, it is that me saying any of this does not matter in the slightest to the Wikimedia Foundation. That is why I have ignored the Wikimedia surveys that ask me for my opinion, and I will continue to ignore them in the future. It would be a pointless waste of time for me to fill them out. The Wikimedia Foundation does not care about me nor anyone else who disagrees with them or (some of) their decisions. It really is that simple. That is why I gave up on any attempt at serious contribution to Wikipedia years ago, and instead retreated to the Wikimedia projects that I was already contributing to that were less... stiff and uptight; projects that I actually enjoy contributing to and can contribute to comfortably without feeling like I have to walk on eggshells all of the time.

Well, I have said my piece. I know that it does not matter to you, and that my plea that you reconsider this kind of approach shall fall on deaf ears, but at least this dissent is out there publicly. That way, on the off chance that the Wikimedia projects somehow fall into the hands of those who actually respect the approaches and policies of individual Wikimedia projects, it will be there on the record that there was most certainly opposition to attempts at totalitarian-esque 'solutions' to problems that end up proving more problematic than the original problems were. Tharthan (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

UCoC as an initiative of a Movement priority

For those who have commented on the UCoC, please feel free to input at "Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Discuss/Provide for Safety and Inclusion". George Ho (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Language Fluency and skills

While I agree that our multi lingual wikis such as Meta and Wikimedia Commons need to be open for people regardless of language fluency. It is an issue on other projects. I'm always careful when I edit on a Wiki where I don't speak the language, and I don't expect to be treated the same as on a wiki where i do speak the relevant language. I'm sure we have deleted people contributions and probably also blocked people on the English language Wikipedia because either their skills or the language fluency wasn't sufficient for them to be a net positive to the project. On at least one language version of Wikipedia we have a real problem with lack of sufficiently skilled native speakers to maintain quality. The Foundation in hindsight would also have a problem complying with this language fluency policy. Most year it hosts wikimania with one or two host languages and a clear policy that only proficient speakers of a host language will qualify for scholarship grants. I agree we need to think about linguistic equity, and probably host more meetings where the required language is not the usual English. But we also need to retain the ability to require certain minimum skill levels in issues such as language when we are running projects to write encyclopaedias and other crowd sourced works. This part of the code needs to differentiate between things like gender and ethnicity where we don't allow discrimination. Things like age where we sometimes have to put a legal minimum. And things like skill level and language fluency where we do need to discriminate.

We also need to think very carefully how we handle language fluency issues that are really linguistic disputes. Several Wikipedia versions have chosen to standardise on particular versions of a language - I think Portuguese at one stage had a situation where some Wikipedians based in Portugal were unhappy with having Brazilian Portuguese as the standard for the Portuguese Wikipedia. English doesn't have this problem as we standardise spelling at the article level not the project level. But I wonder if standardising a language version of Wikipedia on one particular dialect would be considered to be secrminitaing against people who speak other dialects of that language? WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't want to do anything that smacks of secrminitaing. EEng (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

UCoC main page updated

I have updated the Universal Code of Conduct page in preparation for Phase 2 of the project. Dates are in flux, as Phase 2 must be planned in concert with other movement discussions. I will update the page as soon as additional details are available. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Wary about assumption of good faith and mutual respect

EnWiki's AGF (assume good faith) guideline has never been "policy", and it will never be. Making "Assume good faith" an example of UCoC's "Mutual respect" would be a very long struggle to enforce and a very long road to go. In other words, the difference between UCoC's version of AGF and enwiki's AGF is either still unclear or not explicitly explained.

However, submitted draft version of UCoC has made definition of AGF too broad, IMO. Also, the relationship between "Mutual respect" and AGF is neither clear nor well explained. Either the relationships between "Mutual respect" and AGF and between AGF and UCoC must be clarified or explained, or the AGF must be eliminated from the UCoC. If AGF is eliminated, then the "Mutual respect" rule would be meaningless to this date and, for better enforcement, must be changed/altered and clearer. Otherwise, "Mutual respect" would be too weak to enforce. (Realizing AGF may matter but not as much as "mutual respect" itself) George Ho (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC); mostly struck, 02:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why the emphasis on "not a policy"? It's a behavioural guideline, like many other things which are obviously problematic. I suspect the idea is that it's a corollary to the policy. Nevertheless, "assume good faith" is also a section in en:Wikipedia:Civility (which is a policy).

Is there anything within the "Mutual respect" section which you actually think is a bad principle? Or are you just concerned it'll be poorly enforced in a lawyerly manner, like how civility enforcement is sometimes done on enwiki? If the latter, I think this is an issue for the 'enforcement' stage of UCOC. In my opinion, most of the things in "mutual respect" are sound principles for a constructive collaborative environment. Bullet #3 may be slightly iffy w.r.t. cultural honourifics (for example), but like much of this UCOC (imo) the principles are good, the specific wording is eh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of enwiki, I see too many enwiki people here. I know we probably have (one of) the most developed PAG rulebooks of any project, but I'm still a bit concerned the enwiki-centric views could lead to skewed opinions. Are the rest of the wider community participating somewhere else, or? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ist das nicht das normale Vorgehen hier? Die monolingualen Anglozentriker bestimmen alles, und der Rest hat gefälligst Englisch zu lernen, und am Besten auch noch das ganze Regelkonvolut der enWP zu verinnerlichen, als ob die der Nabel der Welt wären. Imho sollten alle, die nur Erfahrungen in der enWP haben, und nur eine Sprache sprechen, von solche Diskussionen wegen mangelnder Erfahrung ausgeschlossen werden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 01:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on "not a policy"? I was basing on w:WP:PAG#Role. BTW, I either forgot or didn't know about Civility policy referencing AGF.

Is there anything within the "Mutual respect" section which you actually think is a bad principle? What about "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves" as well? It contrasts w:Wikipedia:Username policy, especially "Disruptive or offensive usernames" and "Promotional names" sections. Furthermore, examples don't ease my concerns; rather I found respecting usernames less practical than it sounds.

Also, "Practice empathy" would conflict with or prevent accurate criticisms, especially reasonable, well-sounded, and well-constructed ones, toward cultures and different backgrounds, including ones that hold controversial values and implement values in weirder or controversial ways. Furthermore, as I fear, those from one culture may try empathy with those from another culture that would not do empathy. How one culture views other cultures wouldn't be prevented by practicing empathy, would it be? George Ho (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ein weiteres Zeichen der Verachtung für andere Sprachen ist die Benutzung von :w: um auf :en: zu zeigen, auch wenn ich als Sprache in meinem Konto DE ausgewählt habe. Die enWP ist nicht der Nabel des Wikiversums, nicht mal im Ansatz, sie ist nur ein Projekt unter vielen und verdient keinerlei Sonderstellung. Die Bentzung von :w: als Adresse für ein willkürliches Projekt ist ein Schlag in die Fresse aller anderen Sprachen, es zeugt von der völligen Gedankenlosigkeit und dem Egomanismus der monolingiualen Anglozentriker.

A further sign of the disdain for other languages is the use of :w: to link to :en:, even if I've declared DE as my language in my profile. The enWP is not the navel of the Wikiverse, not even remotely, it's just one project among a lot others that doesn't deserve any specieal treatment. The use of :w: for a random project is a slap in the face for every other language, it's a clear sign of the thoughtlesness and egomania of the monolingual anglocentics.

Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Since you're concerned about anglocentrism (as well as the other party), what about your thoughts on German colonial empire (of the past) and past and present prevalence of German language outside Europe? The Germans colonized parts of Africa and part(s) of present-day Papua New Guinea during colonial days. According to the article, the German language was given to those cultures, yet the language hasn't been practiced much outside German-prevalent (is that the right term?) areas to this date. Well, German language in Namibia lost its "official language" status, but it's still prevalent there... somewhat? (More at w:German language#Geographical distribution) George Ho (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Schon mal was von Whataboutismus gehört? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ich denke, es ging um einen vermeintlichen Mangel an Respekt für andere Sprachen als Englisch, der in der Software implizit vorhanden ist. Um das anzusprechen, könnten wir einen sogenannten "MediaWiki internationalization task" bei https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/?projects=MediaWiki-Internationalization einreichen (auf Englisch, natürlich). Vexations (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm becoming worried that (any kind of) criticism of practicality of existing languages would conflict with the proposed "Mutual respect". Are there other languages that are still practical, global, prevalent, and influential besides English? What about Spanish nowadays? George Ho (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

French, Arabic, Portuguese, Swahili and Russian come to mind. I'm not sure what you're trying to say though. Criticism is not lack of respect, but a systemic preference for English, built into the software/platform, is disrespectful to people who don't speak English. Vexations (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for being less clear. I just replied in a frenzy because you were communicating in German, which I don't understand without using a translator tool. Actually, I don't know how practical, global, and influential German language is nowadays within and outside Europe. AFAICS, communication in German language wouldn't most likely attract much attention from non-German people, would it? George Ho (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 23:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Multilingualität ist das Schlüsselwort. Bevor so etwas wichtiges wie ein UCoC nicht in mindestens einem Dutzend Sprachen vorliegt, braucht die Diskussion darüber gar nicht erst zu starten. Englisch ist nur eine Sprache von vielen, und nicht die Lingua Franca, die sich die monolingualen Anglozentriker gerne wünschen würdfen. What do they know of England, who only England know.

Leider ist schon durch die Ansiedelung der WMF im völlig überteuerten und anglophonen Silicon-Valley-Umfeld eine unschöne Weichenstellung erfolgt, warum zieht die nicht um in eine günstigere und anderssprachige Gegend? Am besten gleich in ein multilinguales Land. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No clue what German colonial history has to do with things. But if a UCOC is being made that affects so many projects, all of which will likely have stronger non-local UCOC enforcement mechanisms than enwiki will, I think it's only fair they should have as great an input in what they think about this. atm, at least here, it's mostly our voices filling up the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
If I want to say something negative about an existing language, how do I also not want to violate the proposed "mutual respect" rule? George Ho (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you would want to do that, but it seems to me that you can't be both denigrating and respectful at the same time. Vexations (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyone would hopefully agree that running any process in multiple languages is difficult even with the best intentions. The EU and UN handle it with an armada of translators. And even that only applies to formal events and documents, while most informal discussions happen in some work language, usually English. With that in mind, and AGF in sight, I don't believe it's fair to accuse the English-speaking community, and Foundation staff especially, of harbouring any hostility towards other languages. Where comments are made in languages other than English, or where they contain errors because the author isn't a native speaker, they seem to be given just as much weight as other comments, and I cannot remember any rude comments or really any comments mentioning the language barrier in such cases (It's slightly unfortunate that George's comment, above, can be misread as flirting with Godwin's law).

English has been a compulsory subject in German schools for decades, and the vast majority of people should be able to participate in a discussion such as this. Some people will be excluded, yes. But there is no reason to consider that exclusion different than others, such as a lack of technology. It might be interesting to see language statistics for people who do not speak English, as either first or second language. Maybe the goal of inclusion would be efficiently served by running such processes in some other language as well. I doubt that German would be a leading candidate, however.

Finally, I can't help but notice that while global Wikipedia leadership has managed to expand the franchise to hundreds of languages, right-to-left scripts, and untold numbers of other cultural quirks that stood in the way of becoming truly global, dewiki isn't even willing stop mislabeling actresses as actors (and so on–all such labels are gendered in German) even though they are regularly being called out for it, and the 90/10 gender disparity that is both cause for and effect of it, every time the reputable media they otherwise cites as sources mentions them. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

2,1 percent of Germans speak english perfectly, see also English Proficiency Index 2020 (deutsch); English Proficiency Index (english). Cheers --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 12:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how many native English speakers speak English "perfectly".Vexations (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Section 3.1 -- Harassment

From Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review#3.1_–_Harassment

> (Note: The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are included here as prohibited ways

> to distinguish people. The Wikimedia movement does not endorse these terms

> as meaningful distinctions among people and believes that they should not be

> used outside of prohibiting them as the basis for personal attacks).

This is good wording indeed ... but a detail is missing. I would enhance the note to:

(Note: The terms “race” and “ethnicity” and “sex” are included here as prohibited ways

to distinguish people. The Wikimedia movement does not endorse these terms

as meaningful distinctions among people and believes that they should not be

used outside of prohibiting them as the basis for personal attacks).

Taylor 49 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We could simply say that we don't care how someone identifies instead of contradicting ourselves. Vexations (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What's supposed to happen now?

BChoo (WMF) what is supposed to happen during Phase 2? Tetizeraz (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: Phase 2 will involve community conversations regarding how the UCoC will be enforced. We will have much more information in the next few weeks, which I will post on meta as soon as I am able to. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

BChoo (WMF) Per Universal_Code_of_Conduct#Current_news wasn't the board supposed to review and approve it first? Is that review still ongoing? Vexations (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: We hope to hear word on this soon. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Tetizeraz & Vexations; the page is updated now with details about Phase 2. Thank you for your interest! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Structure

The balance between positive behaviours to strive for and negative behaviours that will not be tolerated is a good way to structure these things from what I've seen. The CoC that a user group I'm involved with followsa similar organisation v:WikiJournal_User_Group/Code_of_conduct/Draft. In case it's useful, there's also a section at the bottom of that page with some other useful inspirations. Some possible things to consider including:

• Have examples in collapsed sections for each item (currently included for 'Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves')
  • Indeed, different communities could contain different examples to illustrate the concepts in a locally relevant way.
• Have a final section of 'possible responses that may be taken' so that people understand that there are a spectrum of response measures

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidding talking about Conflict of Interests is bad

Some of the vandalism on Wikidata is due to users wanting to advocate for a particular interest. In conflict between different ethnicities it frequently happens that users who are involved in the conflict because they belong to one of the ethnicities engage in non-neutral editing of pages that are relevant for the content. Being able to say that those users engage in conflict of interest edits is valuable for the goal of having a neutral Wikipedia and currently it seems the draft intends to forbid speaking about ethnicities. When Arbcom takes cases about Jerusalem where Arabian Wikipedia's are in a conflict with Jewish Wikipedians it's important to be able to have a discussion about whether certain members should recuse themselves because they belong in either of those ethic groups. Fordidding to distinguish based on ethnicity would forbid such discussions. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If enacted, your suggestion could mean that we ought to identify and exclude all "Americans" from participating in discussing topics related to all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. I much prefer a situation where it is not allowed to exclude editors on the basis of a group characteristic. Ethicity does not constitute a conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: My suggestion is not that all people who have any conflict of interest should automatically recuse themselves or be blocked from doing anything. My claim is that discussion about whether or not in an individual case is strong enough should be allowed.

My claim is that allowing discussions is good and decision about banning certain behavior should be able to happen in individual Wikimedia project. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me give an example: Saying "I propose that X should be blocked from editing Antisemitism because she has been edit warring to insert unsourced fringe views" is fine. Saying "I propose that X should be blocked from editing Antisemitism because she is a jew" is not. It is fine to discuss X's edits, whether they are indeed fringe etc. But it is absolutely not OK to block X because they are Jewish or even to suggest that her behavior has a causal relationship to her Jewishness. That would be endorsing the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to ethnicity. You don't want to advocate for that, I hope. Vexations (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Belonging to an ethnic group is not a conflict of interest. --Yair rand (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This could create the situation where User:Y1 and User:Y2, both of whom are rabid Palestinians, propose that User:X, be blocked from editing Antisemitism because she is a Jew. This is also called "mob justice".Martinvl (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the example would have worked better if you'd avoided "Palestinians". We ought not attribute a single viewpoint to an ethnonational group. Vexations (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Martinvl: A code of conduct doesn't create situations like that. It just prevents certain situations from arising. I don't think that the code of conduct is necessary to prevent such a situation. In the Wikimedia projects that I know, two users who tried that likely will find out that they don't get what they want. In many cases it means that more experienced users will take a look at the situation and thing about how the content dispute should be handeled. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

On a daily basis, I am called "Russian" on the English Wikipedia by disruptive users who are unhappy with my administrative actions and imply I should not have taken them because I apparently am biased. (This is also factually incorrect, I am not Russian). Whereas I do not find this amusing, I do not think UCoC should deal with these situations, the community if perfectly capable of taking care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unusual idea

Lets throw away safety and inclusion together with divercity and transgenderism from Wiki and concentrate on writing Enciclopedia, not left ideas--1Goldberg2 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No summary report yet?

The summary report on feedback is supposed to be released this month. Now we're closer to February, and I've not yet seen the report to this date. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Interactions outside the projects

"It applies to all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as well as the following instances:

• private, public and semi-public interactions
• discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community members
• issues of technical development
• aspects of content contribution
• cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners."

What exactly does "private, public and semi-public interactions" include? Because, worded like that, it seems like the idea would be to apply a Wikimedia code to non-Wikimedia spaces, and that would be a big problem. For example, if two editors insult each other in a pub, or on Twitter, for whatever reason and I get to know about it, should I then ban them from Wikipedia because of its anti-harassment policy? The only element of that bullet-point list that has any sense, in my opinion, is "cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners". All the other ones are too vague and open to interpretation and abuse.--L2212 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to add an "expression of solidarity across community members". I don't understand it either. Vexations (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Updated Universal Code of Conduct draft ratified by Board of Trustees (February 2021)

Hello all,

Today the Board of Trustees announced that they have ratified an updated draft of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). The update makes changes to four sections, adding clarifying language and reinforcing concepts in the October 2020 draft. These changes can be seen in the change log.

With this announcement, the project moves into Phase 2. The main page has an updated timeline that includes the major engagements ongoing and over the next few months. There is also an updated Frequently Asked Questions page with information on next steps, the current status of the UCoC, and more.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, phase 2 will end in July, right? Sincerely. --NANöR (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, NANöR. The Board resolution states the second phase ("outlining clear enforcement pathways") "should be completed by the end of ... July 2021". This is reflected in the current timeline (added link above). Similar to Phase 1, the draft being submitted to the Board of Trustees is currently the final event in this phase. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Xeno. I'll try to follow the second phase. --NANöR (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hate speech clause

In Section 3.3, third bullet, I would suggest to replace "Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory" with "Any deliberate use of".

Reason: A term like "Hate speech" already carries deeply ingrained definitions which may differ from the one intended here. The rest of the bullet point ("language aimed at...") gives an excellent definition of the prohibited behavior, so it is best to shift the focus to that definition.

Eldar (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Eissink (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Thank you both for your comments about s3.3 of current Policy text: I have included the suggested change for consideration. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Appreciation

This expresses all my thoughts and wishes (as a Wikimedia editor) regarding what should be in place as UCoC. I truly appreciate everyone’s efforts and commitments in drafting this recommendations to adopt. I suggest! A UCoC section be added in the sidebar of every Wikimedia projects in order to give direct access for everyone. Thank you for taking time out of your personal time to help the world be a better place for all of us. Em-mustapha ^{User | talk} 15:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Em-mustapha: Thank you for your comments! I will forward your idea to include a sidebar link at all Wikimedia projects providing access the policy. Feel free to let me know if you have any more ideas! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the main page

Yair rand: I appreciate your attention to the main page text and understand the motivation behind those copy edits. As the originally submitted text was sent for translation to support the Phase 2 community consultations efforts, would you be willing to restore the previous version of the English text copy to avoid confusion between projects?

The change in Special:Diff/21050573 adds a statement of expectation that is contingent on the results of upcoming consultations, and should be amended or restored to the original for clarity.

The change in Special:Diff/21051464 appears to link to a discussion about holding Wikimedia Foundation accountable to a new concept that has not yet been enacted. The phrase you added ("have rejected any WMF-imposed code of conduct") does not seem to accurately describe the outcome of that link.

This consultation involves all language communities, and a stable, translated description of the project is needed. Due to the way the translation work is structured, it would be best if revisions were proposed on talk before major changes are made.

I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts on the project. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) Wouldn't it be best to let this page stabilize, and then send it off for retranslation? If the page has been improved, then the translations should be improved to match it, not the page reverted.

I'll also say that I believe that the unanimous consensus at the link added by Special:Diff/21051464 does include 'It will not attempt to impose their notions of civility upon the communities with very diverse cultural backgrounds in the form of a central "code of conduct".', and it's hard to understand why that wouldn't be considered a rejection by the community that's at worthy of mention, at least until consensus changes. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ideally yes; however, the local language consultations are underway - so there is a need to have stable text and a uniform document across languages. Yair rand hasn’t had an opportunity to respond, so I’d like to resolve the two issues identified above while incorporating some of their changes.

There have been many community discussions held on Meta and at local projects about the Universal Code of Conduct, so including a link to one particular Meta strategy talk page section does not seem to be a representative way of showing the views present in the many communities in the movement.

Perhaps a better option would be to link to a page cataloging past discussions about the Universal Code of Conduct (including the one currently linked), so readers can make their own determination about community acceptance or rejection of the project’s objectives. TomDotGov: Please let me know what you think. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)