Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Voter information

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Link to account eligibility tool[edit]

Link points to an old vote, it should point here instead. Count Count (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Count Count, fixed - thank you. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually, looks like we don't have a current setting for this vote. I'm going to hide that link until we do ... Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would need to ask @Pathoschild to add this vote to the tool. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! It's now added as event 72; let me know if you need any changes. (Events are added on request, but nobody requested this one.) —Pathoschild 02:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pathoschild:, much thanks! We'll reach out earlier next time :) Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says I'm not eligible to vote[edit]

It says I need 300 edits to vote, but I only have 128. But these are supposed to be counted on all Wikimedia wikis. I only had 128 edits on Meta-Wiki, but I have far more if you count all Wikipedia wikis. Kk.urban (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should now be fixed, please try again - sorry for the mistake. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it works now. Kk.urban (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem. I have tens of thousands of edits, and the poll link tells me I have 38. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should now be fixed, please try again - sorry for the mistake. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, succeeded in voting :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

number of edits for voting[edit]

It says I have only made 6 edits between 16 June and 15 December. Can that be right? It's not that I kept track, but still— WordwizardW (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WordwizardW here is an unoffical list - do you think it is more? — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't keep track. I wasn't expecting to need to. When I happen to see something that needs fixing or adding, I edit. This may result in an uneven rate. From your unofficial count, I made 20 edits between 23 May and 14 January. I don't know whether or not you've left something out, but I do feel I edit regularly enough that being excluded feels wrong even if there might perhaps have been a comparative bald patch at just the wrong time. WordwizardW (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only looking at this from a technical perspective, someone from the election team may look in to your feedback about voter suffrage. — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is policy also ignores the real possibility that people would edit across several accounts for purposes of professionalism and privacy, not wanting to be targeted for protected characteristics evident were the professionally encouraged editing on other topics lumped into the same account as those in topics opening an individual up to harassmen.of the very character Wikipedia is supposedly trying to combat with this charter up for ratfication seemingly without warning. This seems contrary to what is motivating this very vote to me and an incredible oversight in determining suffrage in this specific context. Kalidasashivaratri (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting who can vote based on number of recent edits is highly discriminatory[edit]

While I understand the need to avoid spam votes, this policy impacts ALL users of Wikimedia services, and ALL users should have a voice. Any attempts to limit who can vote are inherently discriminatory. Unless everyone who uses it has a say, this vote is arguably rigged.

I am a long-time member, long-time occasional editor - logged-in and not. I was a donor until you betrayed your convictions over politics, but have remained an advocate,.. up until you declared legitimate sources "unreliable" because the people with the power said so. Many of the "false claims" turned out to be true... yet the sources are still banned, and attempts to correct the false accusations are reverted or deleted. The worst part - the behavior is supported by policy.

So-called "hate speech" is not Wikipedia's problem. Bigotry is. Bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."[1] It is not exclusive to any group, race, religion, affiliation or creed. Wikipedia is treating long establish institutions like the republican party like a fringe extremist organization. Pages about controversial topics are one-sided because the "owners" claim any other viewpoint to be irrelevant or false info, or hateful... etc. It should not be up to one person, or one group; and moderators with demonstrated bias should not have dictatorial control over content.

This policy decreases the freedom of the platform and codifies a means of suppressing speech. Because you are being selective about who can vote, how can anyone trust you didn't select them based on ideology. As we can see above, people are being "accidentally" forbidden to vote... How can we know, given what has happened, that even this isn't a form of manipulation? Most people won't question it, even if it is mistaken.

Unless I and every other contributor large and small have a vote, the results of this are not valid. Look back on US history to see the danger of manipulating who can vote...JMPZ (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to limit the voter eligibility to prevent spam votes and meatpuppets, so that the vote can validly reflect the opinion of the Wikimedia community. You can leave the opinion on the discussion page (as you do here).
"you declared legitimate sources "unreliable"" It is related to English Wikipedia local policy (e.g. Reliable sources, Neutral point of view) rather than Universal Code of Conduct. You may raise your concern on the local discussion page. Thanks. SCP-2000 13:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft charter?[edit]

The links all still say "draft charter", and there are multiple corrections pending to the text. Why are we being asked to vote on this draft document which contains multiple uncorrected errors? Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charta-Entwurf / Wahlberechtigung [~ Prüfung] / Koordination[edit]

Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation), PathoSchild, xaosflux·Talk haben wünschenswerten Beitrag geleistet. SCP-20 bearbeitet 'ein weites Feld', ebenfalls neutral & quasi-perfekt. Einer Wahlberechtigung aller bräuchte nichts im Weg zu stehen, wenn es genügend Ressourcen zur Wahlberechtigungsprüfung & (sicherheits)technischen Prüfung gäbe ... . Ich bearbeite · bearbeitete Wikipedia - Beiträge in vielen Ländern & Sprachen. [Probleme machen 'sensible' Gegenstände, insbesondere in deutschsprachiger Wikipedia.]. Da es aber nicht nur um Quellen - Extraktion, sondern auch um Artikulation, ... , Zitation, Translation, Korrektur & Behaviour gegen Schwund an Mitwirkenden geht, sollten Hinweise vor Meetings / Konferenzen an & von alle(n) Koordinationsstellen entsprechend ausgewertet & berücksichtigt werden bezüglich Administrations-Prozeßgestaltung, Administrationsdominanz von wikipedia - Seiten - Erstellern, Translationsprogrammierung, Richtlinien-Entwürfen, Charta-Entwürfen. Besser auch von & durch alle Mitwirkenden. Uazt (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote already finished?[edit]

It says the election has already finished, but it's only 01:36 UTC on 2 February, and the voting period should be open until 23:59 on 2 February. Rusty4321 talk contribs enwiki 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Rusty said. On getting the voting-finished page, at first I thought the ending time must have been 0h UTC, but then I noticed this page says 23:59 (and has done all along, through date changes &c.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the SecurePoll page, the vote started on 00:00, 19 January 2024 until 00:00, 2 February 2024. It is truly 14 days without any reduction. However, since the voter information page mentioned that the deadline is 23:59 instead of 00:00 and people might consider voting close to the deadline, perhaps the vote can be extended for one more day. Thanks. SCP-2000 04:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice here --- indeed, the vote is open until 23:59 Feb 2. It has been reopened now. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timing issues[edit]

I appreciate the time and effort of volunteers and staff for this matter. Having said that there are two obvious timing issues that we should learn for future events of our movement.

I received the email date: 30 Jan 2024, 05:40 (UTC+7) subject: Vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. (If email is going to be sent at all,) It would have been better if the email can be sent out earlier - before the voting period or exactly at the beginning of the voting period.

Now, after learning that I missed the voting period. I would like to see the results and I instead found the message "Please allow up to two weeks for the vote to be scrutinized and results published." It is surprising to see that electronic vote taking this long to process.

I am not sure how many people who got the email ended up with the same situation as mine. My guess is a lot of people will have the same disappointment. Nothing to do with "Universal Code of Conduct" but with the timing/method of communication. It could have been done differently for a better outcome.

--Taweethaも (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the email notification can be sent earlier.
The scrutinizing time is reasonable as there are only two volunteer scrutineers, instead of Wikimedia Foundation staff. They only have limited time and capacity. They have to ensure the validity of each vote, for example, checking if the voter meets the voting eligibility or not, and is not a sockpuppet (fyi What scrutineers need to do in enwiki Arbcom election). Also, the scrutineers of recent enwiki arbcom election (similar scale of vote) published the voting after two weeks, which is same as this vote "Please allow up to two weeks for the vote to be scrutinized and results published.". Thanks. SCP-2000 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply, @SCP-2000. I am here today to check the result. I am delighted to see high voter turnout but perplexed to see a considerable number of oppose. It is totally understandable that things will take time for manual processing. Thanks for the examples of similar voting. I wonder if the process would be more efficient if we follow other example of completely automatic and electronic voting in the future. For example, Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021 took only 7 days to process results. From my memory, I feel that there are other big events that eligibility was checked automatically and results were announced relatively quickly but cannot find one at this moment.
This is after 3+ weeks but we still see the message "Voter statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published soon".
-- Taweethaも (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]