Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting/Results

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting/Results.

  Please remember to:

  Discussion navigation:


NULL[edit]

It appears there are ~1800 accounts without a known home wiki („NULL“) - none of them voted. Who are these shadow people? —MBq (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are accounts without a home wiki in the database for whatever reason. I'm not sure what the actual reason is, but it includes accounts that seem to have an obvious "homewiki" in the database. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): How is one's home wiki set? Is that simply where one's account was originally created, even if one primarily edits another wiki? Graham11 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Graham11: Correct, wiki of registration. Some were also set arbitrarily during SUL unification. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And some are just broken (phab:T96233) or attached to deleted projects (phab:T268711); in general it isn't something reliable for most project governance workflows. — xaosflux Talk 00:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though it is in general fairly consistently tracked by the software. The alternatives (most-edited wiki is the one that comes to mind) are tough to implement. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

struck votes[edit]

A few votes seem to be struck. What were the reasons? Habitator terrae (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most common reason is usually that the user has voted again, which automatically supersedes their previous vote. Nemo 09:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo bis: Of course, but the "voted again"-votes are not struck votes (very few), they are old votes (common). Habitator terrae (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are struck usually because it appears that someone voted with more than one account, or they are not eligible to vote in a way that was not checked for automatically. Traditionally, a number of struck votes have come from WMF staff with personal accounts (or other people with legitimate alternate accounts) forgetting that they voted with the other account already. The reason for any particular vote being struck is recorded in the (non-public) log, and may be reviewed by other scrutineers or the WMF. A struck vote should not be taken to imply that someone is abusing multiple accounts. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Habitator terrae: as ACN says, usually people with legitimate alt accounts who try to update their vote but use the alt instead, so the earlier vote is struck. In this vote I also struck my own vote, noted here. –SJ talk  05:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delay[edit]

Is there a reason why it's taking so long to determine the outcome of this voting? It's been over two weeks since the voting concluded, and about a week longer than the Board of Trustees election, which was more complex and involved more voters. I'm curious as to where in this process this vote is. TomDotGov (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno (WMF): IIRC, you mentioned earlier that the results would be made available as soon as the tally was done. I assume the tally was done today, is that correct? But the dump seems to have been specifically restricted to election administrators. Could this be rectified? (Non-simultaneous revealing of results really isn't appropriate, IMO.) --Yair rand (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TomDotGov / Yair rand: Thank you for the question. The results are now posted. More details are available here: Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines#Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy[edit]

This has just apparently "passed", but with only a very low turnout. In fact, as pointed out on Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines#Legitimacy, the ArbCom elections on English Wikipedia alone usually generate about 1,500 votes - which is about 70% of what we have here. Even outside that, of Wikis which have more than 100 "eligible" voters (whatever that means - it surely is a number higher than the number of active editors, but nevertheless), not a single one has turnout higher than single digit percentage. Such a major decision as this shouldn't be given carte blanche approval with such a minority of support. That is simply not how any serious democratic movement works. I sincerely hope whoever is in charge of this does not decide to go ahead with something so fundamental which has attracted such a low turnout. RandomCanadian (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. This passed on percentage of total voters, but turnout was far, far too low to declare a mandate from the global community. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly third this opinion. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of looking at the results is that of 67341 eligible voters, 1.98% supported, 1.4% opposed and 96.38% didn't vote. According to Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement that means "there is enough support". Silence gives consent, apparently. Vexations (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt it helped to squeak through a positive result that those of us who stopped editing due to WMF / T&S overreach, including approving the UCoC text without community consultation, were excluded from the voting criteria... Anyway, congratulations to those who pushed for this result. Not sure if it will help with the backlash from projects once UCoC starts being enforced based on this supposed mandate, but we'll see... WJBscribe (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd squarly put that on the "this is too complicated I don't want to look into it"-factor. To most ppl this all sounds like a lot of bureaucracy details that they just don't want to spend too much time on. It wasn't an easy thing to vote on, unlike the image filter, a topic that everyone could easily understand, maybe even already had experience with in other aspects of life. That in itself is not a problem, different people do different things. I'd also question the idea that a turnout of an arbcom vote in that sense is any more legitimised than this. Turnout for the arbcom vote, in the grand scheme of it is also just poor, but we accept it none the less. If anything the arbcom turnout compared to the image filter vote does legitimise this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's an average of 40,000 active editors on English Wikipedia. A turn out of 1,500 would be 3.75% of all English Wikipedia editors. Ckoerner (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we're only counting eligible editors, not those who are active by some other measure. Per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voting/Results 22862 were eligible and 866 voted, that's 3.78. If 1500 had voted, that would have been 6.56% Vexations (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So who is supposed to be enforcing this new "Universal Code of Conduct" and when will it start? What should we expect? Who will enforce it? What if they / we don't? So far, all I see is a bunch of legalese gobbledee-gook that nobody can understand, and some meaningless, generic assertions at the top. Somehow, this got OK'ed with an ~2% support rate. Even American presidential elections are quite rightly criticized for only having ~50% to ~60% voter turnout. If 2% is enough, why even have the election in the first place? 74.83.252.90 22:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things I do not like at the Guidelines. But you should ask an honest question and not hide in in critique. (2% probably counting everyone who was allowed to vote. That's how voting works: Only the persons who participate count in the vote. The support rate was 58 % btw.) Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 06:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
58% isn't even enough to get you a seat on English Wiki Arbcom. For something as fundamental at this, which affects all projects, 58% of a single-digit percentage is plainly insufficient. RandomCanadian (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the vague nature of UCoC is very worrying; I was hoping that more of us would spot this and vote No. Things can now go either of two ways. If we're lucky, no one can be proven to have breached UCoC, so it will have no practical effect beyond wasting everyone's time. If we're unlucky, no one can be prove to be in compliance, and the WMF will have an excuse to extend its control of the projects, provoking mass walk-outs like what we saw following Framgate. Certes (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A request for adminship on the English Wikipedia that gathered 59% support would be withdrawn or closed as unsuccessful, so my reading from this result is there is no consensus on what to do. Ritchie333 (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's same on French Wikipedia, 59% is not enough. O.Taris (discuter) 10:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
И в русскоязычной википедии так же: требуется 2/3 голосов "ЗА". VladimirPF (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested before the vote started that from my point of view for the acceptance a 2/3 support rate should be reached until the guidelines are accepted. I also said that from my point of view there should be a separation between the vote and the possibilty to comment. To these two points I have not received an answer. So from my point of view such things about legitimacy should be discussed before a vote started. But this can be chance to think about how to find the right place for a specific topic to discuss about. After it seems at this vote it was complicated to find the right place.--Hogü-456 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This does seem a very weak mandate, at best. Jheald (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the WMF produced an outstanding turnout, with 49 votes (assuming they all include "WMF" in their user names). That's more than 2% of the *total* vote. Not quite enough to determine the outcome, but close. Ornilnas (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development of the vote count after the end of vote.[edit]

Date (UTC) Count of voters
2022-03-22 00:00:07 2352
2022-03-22 09:39:58 2352
2022-03-22 13:04:24 2346
2022-03-24 10:00:10 2346
2022-03-24 21:41:35 2348
2022-04-05 12:54:04 2348
2022-04-05 21:28 2348

Source of data:

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the comments?[edit]

The election said that the comments would be summarized and posted without identifying information - where are these? — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux: The comments remained encrypted by SecurePoll until it was tallied, so the summarizing and de-identifying could not start until a short time ago. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling us this, Xeno (WMF). I appreciate that it will take a while to summarize the comments, but I hope that you can provide us with some idea of how long that summarization will take. Will it also be done by the scrutineers, or will others be doing the summary? Risker (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Risker: That work will be done by the Universal Code of Conduct/Project team (more details here). I can ask for an estimate based on the number of comments and translation needs. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the UCoC Project Team? Is this a group of WMF employees led by User:SNg_(WMF) who posts "on behalf of the UCoC Project Team"? Vexations (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations: The project team is comprised of members of T&S Policy team along with various supporting Foundation staff and contractors from other teams (for example, Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators). Xeno (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Risker - I checked with my colleagues who are working on translating and summarizing. They indicated they expect to share findings in the beginning of May. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping us informed, Xeno. I'll watch for it. Risker (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno (WMF) Have you any news in this matter? It is now mid May and at least something was ready for internal decision making a month ago. HHill (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for letting us know, Xeno (WMF). I'll read this and (if appropriate) comment there. Suggestion: Should there be a category for UCoC just to be able to see all relevant pages grouped together? Risker (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux, Risker, Vexations, and HHill: The comments are online. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had already seen them. There are some discrepancies though, the report speaks of 658 participants, the list goes only to 655, with two slots containing only a -. Over at enwiki at least two users have reported their comments as missing. HHill (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the enwiki discussion? Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 07:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
en:User talk:Iridescent#Ucoc vote rationales posted HHill (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Почему отчёт не совпадает с утверждениями и выводами?[edit]

Я не говорю по английски. Пользуюсь услугами переводчика яндекс.
Вопрос звучал: Do you support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the proposed guidelines?. ПО русски звучит так: Поддерживаете ли вы применение Универсального Кодекса поведения, основанного на предлагаемых руководящих принципах? Это значит, что в отчёте должно быть написано: Поддержало применение (supported application) и Не поддержало применение (not support the application). Тогда результаты будут выглядеть иначе: поддержало 1338 участников (56,99%), НЕ поддержало 1010 участников (43,01%). Дальше вы можете рассуждать сколько участников, НЕ поддержавших применение, выразились прямо, а сколько выразилось расплывчато. В любом случае поддержку высказало не более 57% участников голосования. VladimirPF (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I can speak on behalf of VladimirPF and his message, but I would also like to point out that the percentage in the final results is misleading. 58.61% voted yes and 41.39% voted no, but then 2.77% did not select yes or no. It seems that the first two and the latter percents use different denominators. 58.61% and 41.39% make 100% and don't seem to include the remaining 2.77%. Please fix this! The correct percentages would be 56.98% for yes, 40.25% for no, and 2.77% for none (which make 100% altogether). Maybe I didn't understand something, though? DrHolsow (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes math is odd please explain. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The math makes sense, it is just the difference in if the results are presented as if those that filed empty ballots didn't vote at all: SUPPORT / SUPPORT+OPPOSE. How this was going to be counted (may have been) included in the polling rules (?). — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could count the percentage of support votes as support/total: 1338/1338+945+65 = 56.98% Vexations (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone state this as a sentence? Like "XYZ% percentage of voters supported this outcome..." These percentages seem weird to me but maybe I am missing something. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry there are a lot of semantics in play there. What is a "voter"? Is this everyone on the voting rolls, or everyone who turned in a ballot? If only those that turned in a ballot (what I expect is the most common case) are you still a "voter" if you turned in a BLANK ballot? Where do you want to count people that had blank ballots?
With simple numbers, how would you expect the results represented if there were 10 "yes", 10 "no", and 80 "blank"?
  • Did: 10% "support"?
  • Did: 10% "oppose"?
  • Did: 50% "support"?
  • Did: 50% "oppose"?
  • Something else?
— xaosflux Talk 13:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Thanks, I just wanted to give anyone the chance to clarify if they liked. If this is the result of the process then it should stand. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of votes[edit]

Do I have the right link or was the list not visible here a while ago https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/1341, but now it's restricted to election admins? -kyykaarme (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, the voter list itself isn't normally secret. Perhaps User:JSutherland (WMF) can comment on this? — xaosflux Talk 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my delay; there was a security issue involved with the tally which we're working to resolve, but in the meantime I put together a voter list here: Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting/Voter list containing the same information. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the workaround! — xaosflux Talk 17:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNg (WMF)[edit]

@SNg (WMF): коллега, в таблице и в вашем заявлении указаны разные результаты. Прошу изменить результаты голосования в вашем заявлении на те результаты, которые указаны в таблице. VladimirPF (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results by wiki ?[edit]

Do we know what the support/oppose balance was wiki by wiki ?

That would seem the actaully interesting breakdown, having put in all this effort to assign particular voters to particular wikis. Jheald (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald: The nature of SecurePoll is that the votes cannot be linked to a specific user. This also means it is not possible to connect votes to home wikis. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voting/Results&oldid=23317624"