Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text/Archives/2020

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

0 - Introduction

public and semi public interactions

I think semipublic is one word. Vexations (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Legoktm (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd go for semi-public hyphenated. Pelagic (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

So private abuse, say in wikimail or direct-messages on a WM-hosted chat platform, is okay? Pelagic (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that private communication, at least editor/WMF staff communication, should be in scope. My understanding is that one-to-one communication is a space where behavioral problems can be common in Wikimedia-land. Libcub (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I also agree this opens the UCoC to be subverted by keeping any interactions that would violate it private. Is there any special reason to keep this language? Chico Venancio (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

context, while

doesn't need a comma Vexations (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not have whole subsections created for single copyedits? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

baseline of acceptable and unacceptable behavior

I think you mean "expected and unacceptable". Civility, collegiality, solidarity are expected, not merely accepted. Vexations (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Also for consistency: that's what the section headings are called. Pelagic (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This includes:

The first "this includes" refers to the previous sentence "it applies to everyone" and makes sense. The second "this includes" that introduces the bullet list refers to places not people, and made me think "huh?" Suggest "The scope includes:" or "The UCoC applies to the following situations:" or something similar. Pelagic (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for words, phrases, and copyedit ideas on this section. You are right in suggesting that tweaking a few things can make this section clearer. The Drafting Committee and T&S are taking note of your inputs for review. --NNair (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the observation made by Pelagic is insightful. it is understandable that the intention may have been to express this as a code that applies to people, but that's too broad. I think I qualify as a person, so will this code apply to me? Of course, in the context of interactions with Wikimedia projects, but of course not in other situations. My chat with my neighbor is not covered. The statements says "it applies to everyone who interacts with and contributes to…". I count as a person who does such interactions, so the statement declares the code applies to me. I agree that it does but only in the context of my interactions. It might be a little stilted and requires better wordsmithing but the concept should be something like "it applies to everyone in the context of their interaction with and contributions to…"--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Libcub (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Scope clarification

I'd like to see more clarity around the scope of the places to which this code applies. Some things are obvious. If we look at the Wikimedia foundation site, everything identified in the following sections is covered:

  • Content projects
  • Infrastructure and coordination projects
  • Movement affiliates
  • Wikimania

I don't see OTRS on that page although I assume it is included. Can I assume that the broader List of Wikimedia wikis is completely in scope? I think the answer is yes and I do see OTRS on that page.

I see Arbcom on the longer list. Obviously, the public contributions of the committee are subject to the code, and probably the restricted internal discussions. However, while I am not an Arbcom member, it is my understanding that individual members sometimes engage in confidential discussions via email and possibly by voice that are not part of the recorded documents. Are these covered? If I'm wrong and then are no such discussions, I do know as an OTRS agent that I occasionally reach out to another agent by email to discuss various issues. Are those emails subject to the code of conduct?

The Wikimedia foundation maintains a number of mailing lists. I assume these are covered although I don't see them mentioned at either of the two links listed above. Arguably, they do not belong on the long list of wikis because they are not wikis, the only mention on the Wikimedia foundation site is an entry in external links.

The section discussing "movement affiliates" defines them as "independent, but formally recognized". I believe there are a number of collections of people organized to promote Wikipedia that are not formally recognized, in some cases because they are in the process of arranging formal recognition but there may be others that have no such intention. Are these covered? There are hundreds of edit-a-thons. Many of these are organized by formally recognized affiliates and presumably therefore covered, but it is my impression that individual editors often set up a more informal edit-a-thons without formal blessing of an affiliate. Are these covered? I had a friend visit who asked me more about Wikipedia, so I set up an introduction to Wikipedia hoping to persuade him to become an editor. I'm pretty sure my interaction with him was not covered (although of course, actual edits to Wikipedia were covered) but what I'm getting at is: where is the line drawn? Only formal events sanctioned by formally recognized affiliates or is the coverage broader? Assuming it covers edit-a-thons at some level, is that the expectation that all such events will start with a review of the code of conduct? Presumably not an in-depth discussion but will there be a requirement to at least mention that the session is subject to the code of conduct?

I'm not currently active in IRC, but when I was more active, I was aware that there were discussions about whether IRC discussions were subject to Wikimedia rules. Has that been clarified and does the code of conduct apply to IRC interactions? If so, is there a definitive list of which IRC sites are covered? There are some obvious ones, but if I'm in an IRC site not put together by Wikimedia, and someone starts asking questions about Wikimedia and I respond, does that constitute interactions that are covered by the code of conduct or not?

I'll emphasize that I'm not looking for all of these questions to be fully answered in the introductory text. My preference would be for a side document going into the details of the scope which could be referenced in the introductory text.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I do like the breadth of the scope. Libcub (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

everyone who interacts with and contributes to

No. In particular, readers interact with the sites but the code does not & should not apply to them. Pashley (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say the distinction should apply to an activity rather than the category of person. I would agree that the activity "reading" is not covered. However I would say that if someone posts a question with problematic content or wording on a project page, whether or not they have edited an article should not impact that the UCoC applies. Similar with posts to our email lists like Wikimedia-l. Libcub (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

section numbering

I think it is important to number the Introduction as 1 rather than 0, to clarify that it indeed fully a part of UCoC as opposed to simply background information. Libcub (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

1 - Why We Have a UCOC

  • Avoid Unnecessary Capitals if Possible (This Includes Abbreviations Like UCoC). Eissink (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC).
I disagree. I like UCoC, and think it is clearer than UCOC or ucoc. We may even want to change to to WUCoC to avoid, shall we say, incorrect pronunciations and adolescent humor. Libcub (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I should have been more clear: I too think that UCoC is better than UCOC, but I wanted to point to the fact that even the drafting committee members exchange both forms. But more than that: I wanted to point to the strange, divergent and especially unnecessary use of capitals in this paragraph's header: Why We Have a UCoc. Eissink (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC).
@Eissink:Thank you Eissink, I guess these should be typos by the committee unless there is a reason for it that we do not know. I have highlighted it for them to be double-checked. Your comments are always helpful. Mehran (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Instead of UCoC, why not simply refer to the document as something like "the code", "this code", "code of conduct" or similar? Don't introduce more jargon and initialisms than are absolutely necessary. – Teratix 10:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Define 'we'. Who is 'we'? If necessary, use 'we' only in this paragraph, but consider renaming this paragraph to something like "The purpose of this UCoC" and consider avoiding the personal pronouns entirely. If you use 'we', make sure that is clear who is meant by that (it is not clear in the current draft). Eissink (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC).
  • The following change would make the UCoC much more accetable for the autonomy of the projects (for example in en.wikipedia, Wikipedia has no firm rules):
The UCoC provides a baseline of behavior for collaboration on Wikimedia projects worldwide. Communities may add to this to develop policies that take account of local and cultural context, while maintaining the baselines listed here as a minimum standard.
Habitator terrae (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I found the following worthy of discussion:
"defines a baseline of acceptable and unacceptable behavior"

This means that the points adressed in the Code are about "acceptable" behaviour. This sounds very binary. If you do not behave as described in the Code, does that automatically mean that your behaviour is "unacceptable"? For example, the Code says: "lend them a hand when they need support". So if I do not lend someone support, does that mean that my behaviour is "unacceptable"? Ziko (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed: "Expected behavior". So in spite of the line I quoted above, it seems that there are three different categories? Acceptable, Expected, or Unacceptable? Ziko (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer changing "Expected" to "Encouraged". For one, as many others have pointed to, we cannot reasonably expect to bind everyone to do everything the 100% ideal way all of the time (no, I'm not going to try to empathize with a vandal or a POV-pushing genocide denier). Second, "expected" sounds didactic. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Acting in contradiction with

  • I think that should be "Acting in contradiction to" Vexations (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I was going to say "acting in contravention of", but yours works too. Graham87 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree with both that the current wording is awkward; no strong preference on alternatives except some change should be made.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

WMF initiated actions

  • "Acting in contradiction with the UCoC can result in sanctions being imposed by the community representatives and functionaries of the platforms (as per the local communities endorsement and contextualisation) or the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms." (Emphasis mine)

If the WMF starts throwing around bolts from the blue for violating this policy (and as-written you can make the argument that EVERYONE has violated some part of this policy), there's going to be drama. That's not a threat, it's just a statement of fact. The WMF lacks the nuanced, context-dependent ability to make judgments on these cases. They should be left for a group of their peers to decide (arbitration committees, or equivalents). If a problem is pervasive within a project and still unacceptable, have that project judged by other similar wikiprojects. Do NOT, however, have some WMF staffer who doesn't understand that Wikipedia only works in practice and hasn't done the workflows that the person in question does make a unilateral decision. That's how you get Fram ban style drama. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That raises a good question: is the UCoC intended to be a justification for sanctioning people who do not conform to it, or an ideal to encourage people to conform to? The first assumption is -- as Ziko notes above -- binary, while the second lends itself to a more nuanced approach. After all, some people who engage in behavior that can be considered harassment are unaware that it is, indeed, harassment, & will stop it with a gentle comment. Of course there are other people whose behavior cannot be changed, no matter what is done, & the only solution is to permanently ban them, but IMHO we already have the mechanism to handle these cases. (I can attest en.wikipedia in the old days chronically failed to handle disruptive people, & the arbitration process often is weighted too far towards severity in its results.) -- Llywrch (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog:Hi Tazerdadog, thank you for your feedback. At this stage, the UCoC Draft Committee would like to know the users' feedbacks and opinions about the draft, enforcement of the UCoC is something that will be focused on at the next stage. I will make sure that the draft committee will consider your feedback.
@Llywrch:Hi Llywrch, you are definitely correct, some Wikis (e.g. English Wikipedia that you mentioned) already have the policies and guidelines to handle such issues. In such cases, the UCoC will be more helpful for the projects that have no behavioural guidelines/policies. Mehran (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Mehran (WMF), your response makes no sense. I suggest you read my comment again, this time with more care. -- Llywrch (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Llywrch: I totally agree and understand what you are trying to say in the first part of your comment, my response was for the last part of it where you mentioned "... we already have the mechanism to handle these cases ...". What I was trying to say was that the UCoC is similar to the local behavioural guidelines/policies, and will unlikely effect Wikis that already have similar guidelines, in this case English Wikipedia. I thought would be useful to mention it and you may know it already, sorry if my response made confusions. Mehran (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mehran (WMF): OK, I see what you are responding to. I slipped off onto a tangent which mislead you, despite working hard to stay on point. (I get distracted far too easily when writing.) My mistake. -- Llywrch (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog, Llywrch, and Mehran (WMF):Hi Tazerdadog, Llywrch and Mehran
We must remember that the WMF has legal responsibity for what is posted. A few years there was an incident on the English Wikipedia when a user who just happened to be as Nobel Laureate and a retired Cambridge University Professor was blocked by an over-enthusiastic administrator for "Making legal threats". The block was clearly ridiculous and when it was not lifted immediately, the editor concerned theatened to go to the press. The block was removed a few hours later. I don't know if the WMF was involved or not, but if the English Arbcom stuck to their guns, I am sure that the WMF would have brought pressure on them. Likewise, if somebody were to sue an administrator for harassment, the administrator claims that he was merely abiding by Wikipedia rules but the court says that the rules were unlawful, then WMF is involved - they are honour-bound to support the administrator concerned and also to ensure that there is no repitition of the event. Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Martinvl: I highly doubt the WMF would attempt to intervene in a block over possible media attention. That is not within their scope. --Yair rand (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Martinvl: Actually, no. The WMF is not liable for content any of the projects have due to the law of common carrier. It's the same situation with a telephone company: they are immune to law suits because two individuals used the company's cables to plan a crime. And this has been upheld in court. Some years back some woman who presented herself as a literary agent was described as performing unethical behavior; she sued the Foundation for defamation (despite that the page was promptly deleted for other reasons), & the judge dismissed the case on those grounds. Of course, this doesn't mean that the editor responsible for that content couldn't be sued for defamation, which is one reason I've never worried about the policies concerning biographies of living people as much as some people. -- Llywrch (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I was involved in that episode (not as a blocking admin). The threats were pretty real, and neither WMF nor Arvcom were involced. Hosephson retracted the threats and was unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed it is dubious to what extent the WMF can hide behind the law of common carrier. The WMF is not carrying boxes from point A to point B, but is publishing content online, so that different laws apply. - Brya (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

the local communities endorsement

Should be possessive: the local communities' endorsement. Pelagic (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

duplication of "contributors and participants"

This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants sounds awkward. Anyone got better wording? Would "applies to all contributors and participants in their interactions" do? Pelagic (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the concern expressed by Pelagic, without yet coming up with a better alternative. Why do we mention both "contributors" and "participants". Maybe the Venn diagrams aren't identical but I'm not sure what is intended by the need for the two terms.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
A contributor is a subtype of participant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Poorly worded bracketed text

The bracketed "(as per the local communities endorsement and contextualisation)"could mean everything or nothing. There is probably a missing possessive apostrophe but even with this, is the "as per" seeking to refer to the process of selecting representatives or to their agreement to a decision (before or after it is made?). And what is the vacuity of "contextualisation" performing here? AllyD (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The other issue for me is that this parenthesized phrase seems to imply that local groups can choose to endorse or not to endorse the UCoC. But the point of having this as a "universal" code means it does not matter whether a local group endorses it or not, the UCoC still applies to them. Right? Libcub (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Or the Wikimedia Foundation"

I would like to be mistaken, but this phrasing looks like opening a backdoor to unwanted interventions of WMF in well-working projects, without proper understanding of local context or even language. Do we really need another piece of drama in colour yellow bahama? To avoid this, I propose such wording: Acting in contradiction with the UCoC can result in sanctions being imposed by the community representatives and functionaries of the platforms (as per the local communities endorsement and contextualisation) or — in lack of appropriate procedures or measures thereof — the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms. Not a native speaker, I do not insist on the words, but I do insist on the meaning. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That's okay, but I would also suggest an additional in the event of a lack of appropriate procedures or measures despite prior notification of ongoing structural failings by the Wikimedia Foundation, as the legal owner of the platforms. One major unhappiness point in the FRAM case was T&S saying that en-wiki had some structural failings and then gave no reasoning for why they hadn't provided formal prior notice of this, reasoning, and attempted resolution. I also don't want a single issue acting as justification for their intervention Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Marcowy Człowiek and Nosebagbear:I really appreciate your feedback. There is also a similar thread above and it was explained there that it will be focused on enforcement of the UCoC at the next phase. However, I have highlighted your comments and will make sure that the draft committee will consider them. I believe what they meant to say was similar to what you mentioned, but it is good now that we know that it needs to be revised. Mehran (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mehran (WMF):, I'm not quite sure how my comment can fall within the enforcement section but the current phrasing doesn't - I'd be even happier if the current reference to WMF enforcement was excluded from the base "intended behaviour" draft and only discussed in enforcement. You are right that that would make 5x as much sense. But if it is going to be there, then my proposed amendment would also be in scope. It's not possible for one to fall in without the other. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, why?

The most common reason to make universal things — interaction. If there is a common issue when I trying to do something in a foreign language wiki and facing with aggression or some other misbehavior against me, harmonization of all CoC is allow me to point specific rule, that was violated. But there's no need to make new document, just a list of links can make this work instead.

But most of declared problems cannot be solved with this code. More than, if T&S team will provide it strongly, it can make more problems, than they try to solve. For example, recently I faced with user, that write complain on me, when I make edits that he did't like in two articles, one of them created by this user, and in second he make many edits, and blame me that I stalking against him. If T&S team will react on complaints like this, it became users to collect dirt on users — not becase want to hurt they, but to get ahead. Say hello to 1937!--Tucvbif (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Minimum

To reiterate a point above: speaking of a "minimum" appears to assume that we're dealing with a totally ordered set. Please include the definition of the ordering function, or remove the word "minimum" as suggested above. Thanks, Nemo 13:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC

"Minimum standard" is a legal term. It means that communities may decide to use a higher standard, that means, stricter rules. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

participate in a global community that will avoid bias and prejudice

The way we phrase it now is a bit awkward: "[...] all who engage in Wikimedia projects and spaces will: [...] participate in a global community that will avoid bias and prejudice". To "engage in" is to take part in an activity, to be a participant, so there's no need to say that twice. The use of will, also twice expresses the future tense, which makes one wonder when this is going to happen. Better would be to say: "By participating in Wikimedia projects, you become part of a global community that avoids bias and prejudice". Not that I agree with that: Everyone is biased, and bias is unavoidable. Those who claim to be unbiased are simply blind to their biases, and Wikipedia is spectacularly biased. We rely on biased sources, for example. We could say we try to overcome unconscious institutional systemic biases or something to that effect, but to claim we "avoid bias" is false. — 21:05, 13 September 2020‎ Vexations

Poorly explained

Thanks to everyone who worked on this, and sorry for the harsh subject line. My concern about this section is that it does not adequately explain the need for a UCoC, and movement members unfamiliar with the arguments around codes of conduct may oppose without fully understanding the point. Jesse Noller, who wrote the Python Software Foundation's conference CoC, wrote a good blog post justifying why the PSF needed a code of conduct. They argue that the community is improved by being explicit about expectations, and that the goal is not necessarily stop inappropriate behavior (c.f. meatball:LimitDamage), but to prevent tacit rules from inadvertently protecting inappropriate behavior. I don't do the work justice, so I encourage interested people to read it. What differs between that document and this draft is that our draft does not explain how the CoC will help us accomplish the goals it lays out. It's true that we want to create safe environments for our fellow volunteers and protect our projects from harm, but how does a UCoC do that or do it better than our existing documents? Right now, the section explains the values we have without connecting the document to those values. I would prefer this section explain how adopting the/a UCoC helps us achieve the goals it currently lays out. Wugapodes (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

In line with the Wikimedia mission, all who engage in Wikimedia projects and spaces will (...) strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work. - it is a bit surprising to see two Wikipedia policies show up in such a generic document. While the other expectations in that sentence are very reasonable, accuracy and verifiability don't necessarily make a lot of sense on all projects (what is it to be accurate and verifiable on Wikiversity, for example?), and even where they do, these are mainly expectations about content work, so this sort of implies that the same enforcement structure that is applied to e.g. incivil behavior can also be used to regulate content issues, which is an exceedingly bad idea - whatever team or commitee is going to handle UCoC violations will certainly be ill-equipped to determine standards of verifiability in hundreds of projects. --Tgr (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems an extreme viewpoint. Content issues can be approached at several levels; while it is impractical to go check every detail of a page for verifiability, it is quite doable to recognize patterns of transgressions in a user's handling of content. These patterns are forms of conduct. - Brya (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

2 - Expected behavior

This whole section is, sorry, unacceptable. It is simply impossible to impose respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship and all those fine things by a "code of conduct" and sanctions. A code can say that certain clearly defined behaviours like insult etc. are forbidden. A code can never induce "positive" behaviour. Respect, solidarity etc. enforced by a code are devoid of any value. They can only be given out of one's own free will.Mautpreller (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mautpreller. We are talking about to different patterns of behaviour:

  • A: "Politeness", "civility", "good manners".
  • B: "Friendliness", "collegiality", "helpful". Requires a real smile, not only a fake smile. :-)

This might depend on the culture of an individual or a society. But in my perception, we can expect people to be polite. That is the baseline. (We might argue what behaviour counts exactly as polite, though.)

But we cannot expect people to be friendly, always, to everybody. Some might say, like Mautpreller, that friendliness is based on friendly feelings and must come from the heart. Others might say that you can expect friendliness from a professional who is trained e.g. as a Social Media manager and is paid for that work. But the WM regulars are volunteers, and they have the task to protect the wikis and deal sometimes with really nasty newbies.

And then again, we have to make the distinction which behaviour we find "only" desirable and worth observing, and which behaviour we find unacceptable that should be sanctioned. Ziko (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mautpreller. This section reads like a set of rules for an adolescents' social club. It's based on a misstep by the WMF – trying to turn a set of projects that are about creating and improving content into a "movement" that prioritises everyone getting on, instead of content. I appreciate that a goal is probably to have both the content and the getting on, but this section is telling volunteers what to think and feel. That goes too far, and is a very long way from what the WMF should be doing (see the "What is the job of the W?F? What *isn't* their job?" section below for a summary of what it should be concentrating on). I'm happy to go into more detail if asked, but conclude for now that this entire section should be scrapped. EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Aș said by people before me, the wording on this section is way too harsh. One cannot simply force volunteers to help others or too always be nice. Bringing the tone down a notch or two (e.g. "desired behavior" rather than "expected" and corresponding changes throughout the doc) would better reflect the relation between members of the community and between the community and the wmf. Strainu (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with the sentiments of several editors, some expressed in comments above, and I also see similar comments in sections lower down. I think the problem can be traced to the decision to divide the spectrum of contributions into only two categories: "acceptable" and "unacceptable". I prefer to see at least three categories. In general, I think it would be wise for policies and guidelines (not only this code of conduct) to identify both "best practices" and "minimum standards". In my view, some of the pushback comes from the fact that the "acceptable" section identifies some things that should be considered minimum standards but other things that should be considered best practices. Generally speaking, failure to meet minimum standards can result in a variety of actions ranging from edit reversions to warnings and eventually blocks and bans. However, failure to meet best practices but not failure to meet minimum standards should not result in sanctions. For example, respect should be a minimum standard, but thanking people should be viewed as a best practice. I use the thanks options, both formal and informal a fair bit, but I'm sure there are many editors who have never click on the thanks button. Failure to act with respect to others deserves a response by the community, but keeping your head down doing gnomish edits and never using the thanks button doesn't deserve sanction. I am absolutely sure you did not intend to suggest that an editor who never thanks someone else should be sanctioned, but by including it in a section called "expected behavior" one is led to wonder what happens when someone doesn't measure up to expected behavior. Dividing us up into best practices and minimum standards might help solve some of the concerns expressed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that separating minimum standards from best practices is a good, helpful approach. Libcub (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Mautpreller also talked about lofty goals versus minimum enforceable standards back on 26 January at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archives/2020#Draft?:

”The main problem is that all Coc's you are using as examples are highlighting lofty values and "pledges". Almost each and every action might be defined as a transgression against such values and "pledges" because they are so lofty. A well-proven maxim for any kind of diciplinary measures is to exactly define negative behaviour that may entail sanctions, but not positive values because they are open to different interpretations and the danger is enormous that these vague global confessions are made use of for highly problematic interests.”

The community has been trying to talk about some of these issues for a long time, and the only official feedback was “wait for the Draft, you'll get your chance to comment when it fits our timeline”. Well, now the Draft is out, it doesn’t address concerns that were already raised, so they are being raised again, and by more people than before. I honestly hope we do get a workable Code at the end of this. — Pelagic (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

'in In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events behavior will be founded' the term 'spaces' is vague and can include anything. Sjmantyl (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Actionable?

It is not clear that this part of the UCoC is actionable. Will we ban users that refuse to Practice empathy or Always assume good faith? It is not necessarily bad to have a section that is not actionable and is written to inspire and provide good examples. But perhaps it should be clearly worded as an aspirational section such as the pledge and positive standards of the contributors covenant. In particular, "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves" seems particularly out of place in this section, as it implies an "unacceptable behavior" and might be questioned as aspirational if bundled beside general ideas such as practice empathy and be welcoming in person. Chico Venancio (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I find that it is typically not useful for this type of document to describe scope multiple times, such as the first paragraph of this section compared to what is stated in previous sections. It is better practice to select a term (perhaps "Wikimedian" here) and define it once, and then using just the short term for subsequent uses. Otherwise people will argue about the differences between sections, selecting the section that they think suits their perspective. Libcub (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The wording "behavior will be founded in" is rather odd-sounding. More importantly, clearly many Wikimedian behaviors are _not_ based on "respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship". If that sentence were true, we wouldn't need the UCoC. I suggest something along the lines of: "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, interactions should be respectful, civil, and collegial, and show solidarity and good citizenship." Libcub (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wording

I would propose to change some words here: This applies to all any contributors and or participants in their interactions with all other contributors and participants. Reasoning: all-all is a bit too severe and statistically impossible. Not everybody interacts with all and everybody else of the community. I would prefer some mathematical/statistical/logical/algorithmic reasoning. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Religion

Many modern CoCs, use the term "religion or lack thereof" instead of "religion". I think having it here and making it explicit would be useful (given the discrimination against non-believers in lots of places) Amir (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point! Libcub (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would use "personal beliefs". --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, Nazism and other hate idelogoies are "personal beliefs" too Amir (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if it needs to be made clearer that attacking religion as such is perfectly acceptable, since, after all, that's more or less Wikipedia's fundamental role: distribute and summarise knowledge based on reliable sources, and on eternal doubt: anyone with internet access can propose modifying the content of any Wikipedia article, without being considered a blasphemer. Wikipedia is, by definition, an insult to religion. It's an encyclopedia, aiming at higher quality and verifiability than earlier encyclopedias. In this case, the intention is only to forbid a personal attack on someone based on that person's religion (or perceived religion). So my question is whether this is clear enough in the text. Should we add a second clarification note? Boud (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Beginners

The response to beginners is especially important, and should be welcoming. A comprehensible explanation or motivation should be provided when reverting beginners mistakes that constitute good faith edits. Explanatory motivation is always expected when deleting a new article, or when deleting sourced text.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How would this work with the multi-language projects? Is it up to the reverter to determine the language of the beginner and obtain a translation of their comprehensible-in-their-own-language explanation? And, some of those multi-language projects, like Wikidata or Wikispecies or copyright issues on Wikimedia Commons, are quite technical; so a comprehensible explanation written for a complete novice, for even a simple revert, could be very long.
It seems to me that this sort of thing perhaps should not be specified at the Wikimedia level, but at the individual project level. --Struthious Bandersnatch 10:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

2.1 - Respect

“Always assume good faith”

Assume good faith is a very important rule guideline but the “always” part is problematic. At some point AGF is no longer warranted and actions must be taken to protect the project or other users. Maybe the wording should be changed here slightly? --Count Count (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Corrected. --Count Count (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

enwiki’s AGF rule is never promoted as “policy”, so why should AGF be part of UCoC? Furthermore, it is barely followed in some exceptional circumstances, so either scrap it or rewrite the whole rule from the scratch. George Ho (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Agree - strike "always" at the least. 107.242.121.53 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I struggle with this point, too. What is AGF? A recommendation, or a firm rule that, if violated, will lead automatically to a ban? How to communicate about someone who wants to abuse a Wikimedia wiki for his own purposes? Ziko (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

To always assume good faith is not possible. Vandals do not edit in good faith. Undisclosed paid editors do not edit in good faith. POV pushers do not edit in good faith. Vexations (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    • When I see obvious vandalism and POV pushing, no, I do not stop to assume good faith. Scrap the "always". -Indy beetle (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll add my support for removing "always", for reasons others have made clear. – Teratix 03:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, what it says now is the opposite of AGF. AGF is very useful when dealing with newcomers and can be summarized as "give a new user the benefit of the doubt". Once a user has established a clear pattern of behavior there is no reason to assume anything, and one should act on the basis of reality. - Brya (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Brya summarized it very well.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
+1. Libcub (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
How would the COC explicitly exclude the application of this (and other elements) to serial anonymous vandals? DCDuring (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


I have two problems to offer here.
1) The smaller one: It polices assumptions which happen inside people's heads. It should only police conduct, which is observable actions. To use this rule, we literally have to assume that someone is or isn't assuming good faith. This is more of a feeling on my part than anticipation of real problems, given that "assume good faith" has been in use on the English Wikipedia for many years.
2) The bigger one: The English Wikinews explicitly does not have an "assume good faith" guideline. This guideline has also been in practice for many years. This new universal code of conduct would be overruling Wikinews' autonomy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

How would "always assume good faith" interact with prohibitions on advertising? en:Wiki being used as a source for Google's Knowledge Panel feature means that every company, product, jobseeker, executive, celebrity, etc. the world over is financially incentivized to have an en:Wiki article. Most of these are not notable by either any reasonable definition or the project's well-adopted position. It is a bad faith action to use Wikipedia for promotion so assuming good faith for these actors is clearly a waste of good intentions. Worse, the injunction to "always assume good faith' is easily weaponized to avoid scrutiny. How would the drafters recommend good-faith ways to place barriers in front of bad-faith actors? Recognizing, of course, that the good faith editors attempting to stop promotion are usually individual uncoordinated volunteers and the bad faith promoters are often well-funded and supported by persons or organizations with resources that structurally imbalance the assumption of good faith. Eggishorn (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit on the point about English Wikinews:
  • en.wn has an explicit guideline (not yet a policy, but may get there) never assume. (We've recognized since the Early Days of the project that AGF is incompatible with a news site, and later learned the hard way that it's not enough to omit AGF, something is needed to take its place for social stability; after some tempestuous times we settled on never assume, and it's worked well for us.)
  • I've gradually concluded, over the years, that AGF has done a great deal of damage to the social atmosphere of Wikipedia. I don't pretend to know what would really work well there —it would need something different from Wikinews's never assume, which is customized for news— but surely each project has to be free to explore those deep issues for itself without having AGF forced on it (kind of like being told to "Be happy, or suffer the consequences").
--Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If comments are not enough, how about one of past discussions from enwiki (w:en:Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 9#Request for Comment: make AGF a policy), revealing that the enwiki community overwhelmingly opposed promoting it as "policy"? They thought that AGF is too excessive and unenforceable as "policy". Furthermore, Commons's own AGF guideline) has never been promoted as "policy" yet. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC) ]])

  • "always" should really be struck from Always assume good faith. We shouldn't always assume good faith. Otherwise we would always have to assume good faith for vandals, even past warnings. Instead this should be that we need to assume good faith until there is evidence they are not acting in good faith, which is more consistent with the enwiki AGF guideline. Taking from w:en:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). ... Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. Its important to spell this out.
Another point we need to bear in mind is that AGF on enwiki is only a guideline. Treating it like a policy is not consistent with how enwiki treats AGF, and would lead to the common sense / occasional exceptions to be disallowed. This will likely effect how enwiki applies the guideline (probably making it de facto enwiki policy), and is not the consensus of the enwiki community. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 17:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not definite about the desired effects of (always) assuming good faith. I would rather think of good practices in responding, e.g. to only see and respond to constructive parts of a contribution in a respectful and polite manner. --Manuae (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Always assume good faith" means that one should behave as if others act in good faith, unless there's proof against it. It doesn't mean that bad faith doesn't exist. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Reasons AGF is detrimental to any wiki:
  1. If "assume good faith" is taken at face value, it is telling contributors to assume something. It is destructive to the mission of an information-providing wiki to teach contributors to assume things.
  2. If "assume good faith" is not taken literally (see w:WP:ZEN), it teaches contributors by example to say things they don't mean. This too is destructive to the mission of an information-providing wiki.
  3. Troublemakers benefit from AGF. Bad behavior can be done in good faith, but those doing it can wield AGF as a weapon against those who are provoked by the bad behavior.
--Pi zero (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves"

This is a huge problem, and why enwiki removed honorifics in article space. To explain why, suppose I say that my name is 107.242.121.53, M.D., and I am an expert in Glaswegian homeopathy. That clearly shouldn't go without scrutiny.

I have no opinion on pronouns, except to say that getting them wrong shouldn't be something that editors should be punished for unless it happens repeatedly after a clearly given notification, e.g. on the offender's talk page. 107.242.121.53 19:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be very clear that you should use someone's preferred pronoun after you've been told by them which one it is. If you don't know their pronoun, use "they/them" or the equivalent in your language (which, admittedly, does not exist in most languages). The issue is when people misgender others knowingly, which is what that specific code is about. Isabelle 🔔 19:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
While I agree in principle, I wonder if you really mean to suggest that the hypothetical User:JohnAnylastname should be referred to as "they/them" absent instructions to the contrary in a context where "he/him" would disambiguate the pronouns' referent from an otherwise likely anticedent? 107.242.121.53 19:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I think both are absolutely fine, just as I'm fine with people assuming I use "she/her" due to my name. Using "they/them" from the get-go is, in my opinion, better, since it avoids misgendering people you never met. But that's neither here nor there, as the point of my comment was that, after being told by UserX which pronoun they'd prefer you to use, that's the point where using any other pronoun would mean you are going against the UCOC, not before. I wouldn't be against that section being clearer about that, though. Isabelle 🔔 20:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how it works in English-speaking world, I guess. The problem here is that many languages (for example, Russian) have only an equivalent of "it" as a gender-neutral pronoun which is designated for some inanimate objects and is offensive if used towards people. Moreover, some languages (Russian, again) are so intervened with grammatical gender that it's impossible to even describe someone else's actions without implying their gender (due to grammatical conjugation of verbs also being heavily based on grammatical gender). Thus, if we are to use the language as taught in schools and reliable language institutions, we end up with only two grammatical genders to choose from and inability to use something gender-neutral towards people, even if we use their nickname instead of pronoun, we have to choose the grammatical gender to conjugate verbs. And there's no really any good way around this, as the language is extremely conservative and any attempt to alter it quickly (for example, by forcibly introducing feminine versions of some words which have male grammatical gender) is perceived as a newspeak and rejected by majority of speakers and established language institutions.

And yeah, sometimes language rules force you to use masculine grammatical gender towards females if you refer to them with a noun that only has masculine grammatical gender version (for example, "soldier", "miner", "engineer", "doctor", etc), so if you're strict about following language's rules, it's really impossible to always use preferred grammatical gender in Russian, even if it's very clear that the preferred one is feminine. Adamant.pwn (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Adamant.pwn! The same is basically true for Portuguese, my native language, where we don't still have an agreed upon gender neutral pronoun. And I know that's how it goes for most other languages. I don't think the point of that ruling is to force people to find a gender neutral pronoun in their language and start using it, but to respect whichever pronoun someone chose for themselves within the constraint of their language. My suggestion to use "they/them" by default of course is only valid in English, and even then it's just a suggestion to try to be as inclusive as possible, but not a requirement. I do share your concern about nouns (like "doctor" and whatnot), but like I said, it's about working within the constraints of the language and not being afraid to ask others how they'd prefer to be addressed. Isabelle 🔔 13:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I hope it indeed will be within the constraints of the language. There are some people who try to invent some neologisms to fight the issue the way they see fit in Russian. At the moment their views are mostly perceived as fringe by scholars and I don't feel like giving their ideas undue weight because of this policy. Adamant.pwn (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Not only from a linguistic perspective, but also culturally this pronoun business is exceedingly anglocentric. To name but one example, Isabelle's advice of referring to an unknown woman using (equivalents of) they instead of she in order to avoid any possible 'misgendering' would be met with incomprehension and disbelief in many of the world's societies. As others have pointed out, there is really nothing universal about this, and imposing it on every single Wikipedia out there would imply a clear lack of respect for other cultures and could even be said to have colonialist overtones. Marrakech (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I find this point problematic because of the differences in languages; and again: how universal and firm should this rule be? If someone wants to be adressed as Jedi Master, will I be banned if I don't comply? Ziko (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
this shoud be somehow limited to respectful self determination. Any self determination cannot asserts superiority (no one has right to selfdetermine as "Your Master" f.e.). The best way is to provide closed list of acceptable references and appropriate pronouns (in an end form of user templates). --91.193.176.200 08:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • If I'm being totally honest, unless someone clearly identifies themselves as male or female, I'm just going to use the singular "they". If I've met you IRL, and/or your name is clearly "Tom" or "Sally", then I'll use "he" or "she". If someone wants me to keep track of who should be a zi, xhe, xi, di, ye, bee...I'm just not going to do it. Sorry. There's a few hundred thousand of us milling about. I'm not going to keep a spreadsheet of which neologism applies to which person. If you're offended that I use the singular "they", then you need to find something more important to have an opinion about. GMGtalk 13:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing the current phrasing as an issue. The comments on other languages all seem relevant, and come from those vastly more informed than me, so I'll focus on English. It has a couple of significant points: one is that it shouldn't be sanctionable unless individuals are willfully ignoring pronoun choices. The other is that even assuming it doesn't cover flat out bonkers self-designations, it's dubious as to whether we should enable forced amendments to the language. For example, there's quite a few functionally neologism pronouns, and none beyond they/them that are generally accepted. Does the UCOC bind them into existence? I discourage that Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

While I understand the reasoning behind this paragraph, it should be made clear that this does not apply to content. In articles it might be necessary, for historical or accuracy reasons, to use exonyms or even names that are currently considered to be offensive. I don't think Wikimedia should become one of the outlets which censor western literature because it uses words that are no longer considered acceptable. Strainu (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"People with names that use distinct letters, sounds, or words from their language which may be unfamiliar to you;" - for in-person meetings, it's not IMO reasonable to expect people to be able to respect sounds not present in their mother tongues. I can't roll 'r's. I would not hold it against Italians for adding a vowel to the end of a name, nor if a Spanish person mixed up 'b' and 'v' sounds in English, nor for native Japanese speakers having trouble with english 'r' sounds, and I would hope the same courtesy would be given to me for sounds from languages unfamiliar to me.2001:770:10:300:0:0:86E2:510C 01:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

My 10 cents to names:

  • My correct name is "Eulenspiegel1", but many people forget the 1 and just write "Eulenspiegel". I don't think, the want to offend me. It's just easier.
  • If someone uses letters in his name which are not at my smartphone, I have propblems to write this name.
  • People with extrem-extrem long names, e.g. "Eulenspiegel10 who former was called Eulenspiegel9 who former was called Eulenspiegel8 who former was called Eulenspiegel8 who former was called Eulenspiegel7 who former was called Eulenspiegel6 who former was called Eulenspiegel5 who former was called Eulenspiegel4 who former was called Eulenspiegel3 who former was called Eulenspiegel2 who former was called Eulenspiegel1 who former was called Eulenspiegel0" is an extrem-extrem long name. Or a slightly shorter name which real exists: de: Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Buhl-Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. Writing this name might be longer than the answer itself.
  • People whose name might insult other people. In Germany de:Otto Fucker might be a normal name. In other countries this name might be insulting. There are also people who don't take their normal name and directly look for some insulting names. For example, if someone took the name "Eulenspiegel1 is an asshole", I would never write the name of this account in my answer.

--Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I try very hard to respect people's pronouns, but in this area, as in others, an absolute commandment is an invitation to trolling. On a non-WMF site that will remain nameless, I ran into someone who put forward two sets of pronouns, neither of which I had seen before (something like zhe/zher and fe/fiz, I honestly cannot remember) with the further instruction that one was to be used during daylight hours and the other at night. Perhaps needless to say, I did not abide by that. That's an extreme case, of course, but let's leave out the daylight/nighttime stipulation, and we get to something more real. If a person makes up completely idiosyncratic pronouns, is it really disrespect to say, "sorry, no"? What if someone insists on being referred to as "His Excellency" or "Her Royal Highness"? I know I'm making up somewhat artificial cases here, but the zhe/zher/fe/fiz one comes from my own actual experience. At what point do things move from entirely reasonable requests ("he", "she", "they") that we should abide by to Troll Central? - Jmabel (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with others above that this statement as worded will very likely be exploited. Libcub (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed this is a disaster waiting to happen and it's sad that WMF is seemingly going full steam towards some kind of civil war on pronouns à la Stack Exchange. There is simply no way for one office in San Francisco to determine what's culturally acceptable in hundreds of languages and cultures. So, in practice, whoever has the most privilege (in terms of their cultural preferences being shared by the powers that be in San Francisco) will use this as a weapon against everyone else, aka the unwashed masses. It's a pity to see so much work being put into further entrenching global inequalities. Nemo 20:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nemo and Ruthven that this is problematic, a potential source of trolling and wikilawyering; and should probably just be scrapped. Many languages, included my mother tonge and others that I speak or write, do not have any realistic or acceptable way to address this. This section (and most of the Draft IMHO) seems to ignore that there are further languages in the world other than English somewhat forgetting that this indents to be "universal". Even in English this seems to be potentially problematic reading above. I do not think this document should be used to promote or force newspeak, or whatever neologism or political trend is in fashion this week. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • it is time-consuming to know how people describe themselves. This could be easier with templates: e.g., instead of wondering if we should say "se" or "hse", we would write something like {{subjetctpronoun|Username}}.
  • anyway, I see no reason not to make it compulsory to refer to all Wikimedians (including oneself) with neutral pronouns (or, depending on language, neutral forms of words such as adjectives) and forbidding (except, perhaps, in userspace) to state Wikimedians's characteristics, such as gender, which are irrelevant to work on Wikimedia projects. This should help to decrease the risk of silly reactions like "you say that because I/you belong to that gender".

Apokrif (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

concrete, measurable strategies

What on earth is a concrete, measurable strategy? Vexations (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This very much sounds like the "slavery clause", so beloved by Wikimedia propagandists, is back. It is hard to imagine a "concrete, measurable strategy" that does not presuppose a requirement to do a user's work for him. If some user puts in something completely bogus then no user can do anything about this without outlining how it should be done, that is without doing the OU's homework first. - Brya (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see my discussion above on the distinction between best practices and minimum standards. This is a good example of something that qualifies as a best practice but cannot possibly be a minimum standard. I spend hours each day searching for and reverting copyright violations. While I provide new editors with a welcome that has helpful advice about copyrights and thus may meet this desired practice, in many cases I identified the source of the copied material and then revert it. If failure to provide every such editor with a " concrete, measurable strategies for improvement" constitutes a failure to meet the code of conduct for expected behavior, we have a problem. This should be encouraged but not required.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Criticism should [...] include concrete, measurable strategies for improvement. These Words occur in management and project management literature and refere to your own goals. "I wanna be healthier next year" ist quite unconcrete and unmeasurable, but "I will loose 30 pounds till the end of the year" or "I will go to the gym every day" is concrete and measurable. That's propably what's meant here, but I can only guess. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 23:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A concrete strategy is a clear instruction/suggestion, like "read this page" or "use a spell checker". --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Positive guidance is good!

I like the way that this section sets out desirable, positive behaviours. This prevents the Code becoming simply a list of things not to do. At present I feel lots of Wiki-culture relies on negative behavioural rules - "No personal attacks! No outing! Don't do this!". Giving some positive guidance firstly means there is something for people to aspire and work towards, and secondly is less subject to Wikilawyering. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Land: Positive guidance is good in general, but it doesn't fit with this being a "minimal baseline" of minimum conduct requirements. Users accept positive guidance from their colleagues (in plenty of essays and guidelines around Wikimedia, and there should be more of these), but the WMF coming in to say, in the context of absolute minimum requirements, that certain behaviours are beneficial... that's not helpful, in my opinion. Even under the WMF's own expressed intentions, this document isn't supposed to become where most users receive basic conduct instructions, or to overwrite local conduct policies. --Yair rand (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the current wording guidance; imposition seems more accurate. Strainu (talk)e
I agree with Yair rand. We should strive to be a great community. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

engage in constructive, positive editing

Some editing is by necessity destructive; removing a statement is sometimes required. Deleting an article is also destructive, but sometimes necessary. Pointing out that a statement is wrong or unverifiable is "negative". It would be better to say "Your contributions should improve the quality of the project". (contributed by Vexations)

Yes, both "constructive" and "positive" are words that can be used quite disruptively. It should be about quality. - Brya (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Nor will we distinguish based on

Shouldn't we be distinguishing -between- two things? Vexations (talk)

Distinguishing based on accomplishments, skills or standing

It would be quite remarkable to prohibit a distinction "based on accomplishments, skills or standing in the Wikimedia-projects or movement". If that were the standard that "applies to everyone who interacts with and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces", surely we could no longer justify, say, voting against a candidate for adminship due to their inexperience, or reject an application for checkuser access because a user has no good standing in the community. Of course, I would also hope that the Wikimedia Foundation follows suit and selects their next general counsel without regard to their skills ... In the real world, people are of course distinguished based on accomplishments and skills all the time, and usually anti-discrimination activists not just accept this, but actively demand it. Therefore, whatever may have been the intention here, and while I certainly appreciate the careful work by the drafting committee on the overall draft, I have to say that this particular part reads like satire to me. — Pajz (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess it is to exclude the communication like "I am admin (have 100K edits, have been around for 15 years), and who are you so that we should listen to your opinion?". It may not be be formulated in the best possible way, but I think the idea is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I read is similarly to how Ymblanter does. People should be shown a similar level of civility, collegiality and respect regardless of their contribution history, and "I have ten million edits" is no excuse for breaching those standards. I think there can probably be some more editing of this point, but the intention is very sound. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
In a code of conduct it is quite important that what is meant aligns closely and clearly with what is written. That which can be misunderstood will be misinterpreted, sometimes with ill intent.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Ymblanter, The Land, well, if you do not elect somebody because they are black, you distinguish applicants based on their race. If you do not elect somebody because they are female, you distinguish applicants based on their sex/gender. And if you do not elect somebody because they are inexperienced, you distinguish applicants based on their accomplishments. I understand you are trying to give this whole thing a sensible interpretation, but, respectfully, the plain text is entirely clear. It puts "accomplishments" on the same level as "national, religious, ethnic, and cultural background or caste" etc, and that just makes no sense. That was my point, any it seems you would agree. Now, you can try to replace this statement with a different statement that we can all agree on, but I would submit it lacks any support in the text. Which is to say that the text should be changed. Best, — Pajz (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC) (One could say, for example, that "We will treat everyone with respect, regardless of their accomplishments, skills or standing in the Wikimedia-projects or movement".)
This would make sense; a wording should not be too vague. Ziko (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

In this case, "distinguish" means to discriminate favorably select people, like not to expel a harasser because they are an experienced contributor. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, exactly, and that is the reason why it is a poor choice of words. Saying that candidate A rather than B should be selected as a checkuser because they are more experienced is an act of "disinguishing based on accomplishments". The "without distinction" language makes sense for religious background, gender, and the other categories listed in the document, but not for "accomplishments, skills or standing in the Wikimedia-projects or movement". — Pajz (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Respect of self-naming

As already mentioned by other commentators, you wrote this fragment from a shamefully anglocentric point of view. In many languages of the world, there is no possible way of addressing someone who does not want to be "he", "she" or "it". Because of the language structure, you cannot address them without specifying the gender, either. And Wikipedia is not the right medium to promote or inforce newspeak. I strongly propose to write As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, if only they are lexically and gramatically correct in your language, unless you want to scrap this fragment altogether. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with Marcowy, but even more: this is the problem specific to the young US citizen that see themselves as "liberal" and "progressive". The values of the younger Western people stress on the capacity to impose to the society the way you see yourself, as "Be yourself" seems to be the rally chant of a generation. But please understand that this is the issue of a minority of privileged Western people (not even true for all the Western countries). I can understand that the majority of us comes from this background (if we had really serious problems to solve, like living in a war zone or struggling to eat everyday, we would not be facing a computer writing encyclopedia articles so often), but this Universal CoC should be "universal", and stress on issues that are not the one of a minority (even if it is a privileged one). Let's put things into perspective, and stress on joint work and mutual respect, which should be more universal than grammatical or syntactic details. --Ruthven (msg) 20:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Several languages have grammatical gender, including English, Spanish, French and Portuguese, which have several millions of speakers. It's not "a minority of privileged Western people". --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel like it’d be for the best if language-specific issues are kept out of a purportedly universal code-of-conduct. Pronouns are used for a lot more than what english monoglots think of as gender - they can imply power relationships, level of politeness and the like, and these dynamics cannot always be unilaterally achieved (if you want to use polite pronouns, and I want to use impolite pronouns in German - well we can both do refer to the other person using their preferred pronouns, but this mismatch implies a seniority relationship). I would suggest that you could have language-specific codes of conduct as addenda to the main one, and leave it up to wikipedia-users of those languages to decide what they want. 2A01:C22:AC54:CD00:F5D7:AEA1:E70D:CB1 10:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree as well. Even from a practical point of view such as People with names that use distinct letters, sounds, or words from their language. What is that supposed to mean? If I want to read about Mao Zedong, do I now need to look for Máo Zédōng or even 毛泽东; both which I cannot even produce with my keyboard? Of course, it makes sense to mention those in the article, but how will you even work with those names if they can't be declined? The same counts for Ethnic groups may use a specific name to describe themselves, rather than the name historically used by others to describe them. Does that mean we can no longer use Allemagne in French, but have to use Deutschland instead? It is all way too vague and not thought out. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to let diech know, 毛泽东 did not speak standard mandarin, but a related 方言 (difficult and politically sensitive term to translate); 他's 方言 doesn't have a standard romanisation to my knowledge.89.12.198.6 17:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you :) That actually reinforces the point I was trying to make. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would second this proposal, suggesting something like As long as it is possible in your language, as a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people. As a speaker of Ukrainian which uses a different alphabet, a different grammar and a different vocabulary, I might react in a different way than an English speaker does:
    • As an example, there is a problem with a they pronoun in Ukrainian. Grammatical gender is strongly present in Ukrainian, and many words differ in masculine or feminine gender. Neutral gender exists, but it is used for objects, and using it for people is generally considered offensive (means: I describe you neither as a man or as a woman but rather as an object). For instance, if Alex is agender and goes by they, the dialogue like Dear Alex, you are one of the winners of the contest. — Thank you, I am happy that I became a Wikipedian a year ago contains zero gendered words in English, but seven gendered words (the underlined ones) in Ukrainian. Here is an article about agender people in Ukraine, all of them use non-gender-neutral words, even the two people who avoid he/she pronouns, as speaking Ukrainian without using gendered words is next to impossible. Thus if I need to speak in Ukrainian of a person who uses a gender-neutral pronoun, I still need to know if they would rather use masculine or feminine gender to describe them. It is not because I want to offend them, it is because I want to avoid misgendering them when my grammatical options are limited to two.
    • I may be perfectly unable to reproduce sounds in their name, sometimes even if I want to. I remember meeting a Xhosa person in Cape Town who had a click in his name, but I was unable to pronounce the click correctly no matter how I wanted to. If I want to write the word Xhosa in Ukrainian, I will not be able to use a letter that denotes a sound pronounced as a click, just because there is no such letter in Ukrainian. I will use a letter К instead and pronounce it as /k/ which would be the best approximation a Ukrainian speaker can do. It is not because I disrespect them, it is because my language does not allow me to do it.
    • Some words on ethnicity are sensitive, but sensitivity is not the same from one language to another. Let's say to designate a Jewish person, Polish language uses the word żyd, and it is the word Polish Jews use to designate themselves. The very same word would likely be an offensive way to designate a Jew in Ukrainian and would probably be considered antisemitic. While a Ukrainian Jew may find the word жид offensive, it is a normal word in Polish and absolutely not a lack of respect. Neither of us will use their autonym Yehudim as it is not common in our languages, nor this word is common in English either.
    Thus please be very sensitive to these linguistic differences and make sure that sometimes I use certain words in my language not because I disrespect someone but because this is how my language works — NickK (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the concerns expressed in this section and would propose this amendment: People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns in their own language; This should hopefully resolve the undue imposition of one (Anglo-American) culture upon another. Deryck C. 23:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    Edit: I also support NickK's amendment above. Deryck C. 21:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Deryck Chan: There is a much simpler case. I am a heterosexual man, and my first name in Ukrainian is clearly associated with a male pronoun (like 'he'). However, some foreign female first names sound similar to mine, thus speakers of some languages might use a female pronoun (like 'she') when speaking of me in their language. I would appreciate if we could prevent this, and it's absolutely not Anglo-American.
    As a side note, Ukrainian (like most Slavic languages) uses a lot of gendered words, so if I am speaking of some user I tend to check their gender first. Many people don't do it and assume a person with a gender-neutral username is a man. This is what UCOC should address in Ukrainian context — NickK (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    @NickK: What you said is why I was careful to propose in their own language, not "in their native language". If you have expressed your preference to be referred to in a certain way in a certain language that you speak, other editors should respect you. This works adequately a Ukrainian-language community in the way you proposed: if an editor has expressed their Ukrainian gendered pronoun preferences on a Ukrainian-language WMF project, other editors should respect that.
    But grammatical gender works differently in different cultures, and we ought not to place an impossible burden onto others' shoulders by making them use the correct gendered pronoun without you telling them what that pronoun should be in that language. If you insist on others using a certain gender's pronoun in a language you don't speak, that would be imposing your (Ukrainian) cultural bias onto another language community, which I believe is an unfair burden on other editors. Deryck C. 01:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Deryck Chan: Where did you find any cultural bias here?
    If I am legally a man, identify myself as a man, look like a man, have a first name which exists in only one language and is male, have set my GENDER to male and always use male pronouns, what cultural bias are we talking about? I would expect a pronoun typically used for men in any other language, but I am fine if a person opts for a gender-neutral pronoun instead. However, I am quite unhappy if a person uses a female pronoun because they made a wrong guess, which did happen once or twice at offline Wikimedia events. This is not about cultural bias, this is about respect.
    The most frequent issue is using male pronouns for female Wikimedians, the second most common one being using female pronouns for male editors. The most offensive issue is regarding transgender Wikimedians having changed their identity and other people using a wrong pronoun. The only case where culture or grammar can be an issue concerns non-binary people and uncommon pronouns which do not work the same way in all languages, which is why I suggested As long as it is possible in your language. However, it is clearly possible not to use a male pronoun addressing a female Wikimedian or vice versa in any language, and this should be universal — NickK (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    @NickK: I think you're right. We've framed the responsibility differently (as far as they can express in their own words // as much as you can reproduce in your own language) but in practice it's the same. And your version is probably better because it's a second-person request rather than a third-person condition. Deryck C. 21:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The UCoC needs to be very clear whether self-naming is about conduct or content. (I.e. would something like moving, or not moving, the article Kiev to Kyiv, be affected by the UCoC? Would talkpage discussions about that move be affected? Or decisions about transcribing foreign names? Or deciding how an article would describe a trans person in past periods before their transition? Describing ethnic groups which have a dominantly used, but incorrect, name in the given language? Etc) In case it's the latter, often this would mean going against the academic or media traditions of the given culture or language.

In general, I think it would be good for the UCoC to contain a very clear red line preventing it from being applied to article content, and to deliberations about article content. (Obviously, it would apply to user conduct during such deliberations, and that's a hard line to draw. We mustn't allow participants of a discussion to use racial slurs against other participants, for example, but we do want to have encyclopedic articles about racial slurs, and contributors need to be able to discuss the contents of those articles.) --Tgr (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Another issue is standard vs. "novel" self-identifications. Some people are trolling, or lunatic, or just weird, and rules should not be easy to weaponize by them. If someone insists on being called Doctor Lord Prince John Doe (that actually happened, and the person was entirely serious about it), the community should have the right (and should feel safe) to ignore it. The same with fictive ethnic groups that some far right groups and some religions like to apply to themselves, gender neologisms, otherkin etc. The self-identification should be in some hard-to-define sense "real" and commonly accepted, or there should be some kind of standard of reasonableness like in court cases, before the UCoC would apply to self-identification. --Tgr (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"we will treat them with the same respect as we would want them to show to us"

Different people can view different behaviors as respectful. A literal reading of that sentence would say that as long as you okay having other Wikimedians doing X to you, it is okay to do it to other Wikimedians. I don't think that is what we want. Libcub (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I see it similar. This statement can be interpreted is as an expression from an ideal world assuming all people the same underlying well behavior. This is not shared by everyone in reality. I suggest something as "we will treat them respectfully". --Manuae (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

practicing empathy

For me, this section is worded too strongly. According to it, if Wikimedian A has had abusive communication from Wikimedian B, I think it is cruel to expect that they read further communication, let alone practice empathy for Wikimedian B.

Also, the second sentence is way more than I think is fair to expect. I believe it would turn off many potential contributors. The majority of my edits are simple copy-editing corrections. Sometimes, I am working away on an academic project, and check WP for certain pieces of information. If I notice a typo, I will correct it, and then get back to my project. I do not want to be told that WMF expects me to considering change for such editorial work. And attempting to apply it to readers feels ridiculous to me. Libcub (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Libcub is right, both about copyediting changes being overlooked and about expecting editors to indulge toxic people who are making drama because they're bored.
Sincere people can make drama too. I find a lot of people feel "Editor A is not empathizing with me!" when what really happened was "Editor A doesn't agree with me! I told them I'm right and they're wrong, so they should change their minds and agree with me and do things my way." Some people are truly and sincerely so convinced that they're right about article content or interpretation of policy that they think other people are messing with them when they disagree, even when those other people have sources or precedents to cite. "I told Editor A that the New York Times isn't a good source on this issue, but they still believe the New York Times and not me!" Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The content of this bullet point is – in my opinion – not what empathy is about. From the English Wikipedia: "capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference". The section is about listening and being open to others input. It should therefore be renamed from "Practice empathy" to "Listen and be open" (or similar). -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The practice of empathy is in the realm of personality and beyond a practical guidance on how to behave. Additionally, I see the imperative form of "Practice empathy" problematic in general. --Manuae (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

language

Expecting someone to be able to correctly pronounce phonemes that do not appear in the language they know is quite unrealistic. Libcub (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. All Wikipedias should be international projects. Since they're written and not spoken, pronunciation doesn't matter as much as, say, spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Respect in general

I think this is very, very likely to be abused, possibly unintentionally. "Respect me" can mean "treat me as your equal," but it can also mean "treat me as your superior." In English, both meanings are correct and in common use. Both on and off Wikiprojects, I have encountered people who sincerely felt disrespected when I did not take orders from them or otherwise act like they were better than I was (none of these people were my actual real-world bosses or superiors in any other explicitly outlined heirarchy; I took orders from them just fine).

Civility is a better word to use than "respect" because it is less likely to be misunderstood. I think what we actually want is for everyone to be polite to each other. WP:CIVIL has a long history on the English Wikipedia and it seems to be understood fairly well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

+1 to that. When I read this paragraph I immediately had to think about this quote of „Autistic Abby“:

Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”

and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”

and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

I don't know if 'civity' is the best replacement word, but we should definitely put less focus on "respect", because exactly this effect might be an issue in Wikimedia projects. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
So just put "respect each other". --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
+1 to this. Abusing "respect" to establish authority IS an issue both in the WMF and the projects. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 07:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

cultural context

I agree that people's cultural context is important when deciding whether a particular behavior is harassment or not. How should we deal with situations where the possible harasser and the possible harassee are from different cultural contexts? Libcub (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In my view, any administrator dealing with such a problem should first try to identify whether or not harassment was intended. If it was not intended, but was due to a cultural difference, then the two parties should be encouraged to apologise to each other and then forget the incident (but to remember the lessons learnt). Martinvl (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
What would you want the potential harassee to apologize for? Libcub (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

perceived characteristics

I am glad to see the phrase "perceived characteristics" in the Harassment section, in part because it is inclusive of harassment of individuals who a harasser thinks is a part of some marginalized group, but is not. Homophobic insults should be considered harassment regardless of the true sexual orientation of the target of the insult. Libcub (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"unfair embarrassment"

What is "unfair embarrassment" as opposed to "fair embarrassment"? Libcub (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I had once had a situation where I wrote "X arrived in the Cape Province in 1807" (or something similar) and gave a citation which contained the Afrikaans text "X het in die Kaap Provinsie een jaar na die Britse besetting van 1806 aangekom" (or something similar - also it might have been in Dutch). Another editor who could not read Afrikaans or Dutch replaced the text "1807" with "1806". I reverted his changes clarifying that the English translation of the citation was "X arrived in the Cape Province one year after the British occupation of 1806". This, in my view, is a "fair embarrassment". Martinvl (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Cultural sensitivity proposal

I'm surprised that there is no mention of being kind and acknowledging cultural differences beyond self-description. I propose to add the following bullet-point to the "Respect" section:

  • Acknowledge cultural differences. Words, idiomatic expressions, humour, gestures, and body language that are normal in one culture may happen to be considered offensive in another culture, both between different cultures in the same language community, and between different languages. Assume good faith when you perceive offence and make effort to communicate your cultural sensitivites. Conversely, accommodate other Wikimedians' cultural taboos when they are pointed out to you. --Deryck Chan (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Curiously, why should we be more careful and sensitive about what to say to and how to judge their cultures, including which some may be lagging in progress? George Ho (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: You can only collaborate if you acknowledge each other in terms of how you currently see things. I'm worried about your use of the phrase "lagging in progress", which perhaps suggests an attitude whereby you think your culture is the most advanced and as a member of a superior culture you have the right to judge other cultures more than they may judge you. Deryck C. 15:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, to me, anyone should have the right to judge a culture, even when advanced. If their treatments toward LGBT+ individuals and communities are subpar at best, then why shouldn't we judge such culture? I couldn't tell whether cultural relativism is the answer to tolerate cultures. Cultural relativism has pros and cons as well as cultural diversity. I searched those phrases in Google and read some slides and essays. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

2.2 - Civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship

In addition to my remarks under 1. (define 'we'), this section is an example of the ambiguity of "we". First it addresses "(every) Wikimedian" and "their own behavior", then "all contributors" and "their interactions", but then shifts to "nor will we distinguish". A universal code needs a universal auctor, not a constant change of perspective that suggests there is a higher 'we' that is different from the universal contributor (see more or less similar auctorial changes in sections 2.1 and 3.2 in the current draft; in this context, maybe contemplate on the use of "you / your" also). Eissink (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC).

I agree, this could be better. Ziko (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's even the pivotal symptom of what is wrong with this first draft: it lacks a central writer – the perspectives are going everywhere, there is no focus. I mean, the object is a shared central focus, and I even think the committee is quite close to a satisfactory treatment of the aspects of the desired content, but the pen is horrible, terrible really. And without a good pen there will be no good UCoC. Eissink (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC).
  • I'm not a fan of this one. It places expectations and demands on solitary toilers who work on content alone, without bothering anyone. Reyk (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For some people mentorship and coaching is unacceptablre and humiliating. the statement shoud be changed to "Readiness for mentorship and coaching" - the newcomer should ask for help, not the old one impose it. The first question for obviously confused newcomer must be "Would you mind I help you?" not the helping action iself. And as the new statement I suggest "Stay away from other until they ask for any help". --91.193.176.200 08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Civility, collegiality, and good citizenship are defined in the first paragraph, but solidarity is a bullet point. Why? Pelagic (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, this section says what civility, collegiality, and good citizenship are, but it doesn't say what to do about them. Avoid them strenuously? Pelagic (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, "This includes but is not limited to" – what includes? Looks like missing a paragraph before this. (signing items separately to aid replies) Pelagic (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, this is interesting. When I looked up what "good citizenship" might mean, my dictionaries had no specific answer. English Wikipedia has an article, but it existy only in English. In German or Dutch, I associate the word "citizenship" usually with the topics democracy and government. Ziko (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Civility is a high standard of politeness in behaviour and speech amongst people, including strangers - I think the UCOC drafters are redefining "civility", but in any case, I don't think "a high standard of politeness" is necessary. That's the level of decorum that, for example, a US office workplace might have. That is not the minimum level to be required - indeed, I wouldn't participate in Wikipedia were everyone to be using the same level of interaction as my office, and it doesn't get my (or most people's) best work. Civility does need to be increased, but jumping from 3/10 to 9/10 on the ladder is not the right choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strive for kindness and hospitality. A code of conduct should set a minimum bar, but it should also set an aspiration. Kindness and hospitality are missing from our movement, and the UCoC should set them as a goal. Even if they're not always realistic, we should mark them as ideals we are trying to reach. Civility is formally ok behavior, collegiality is cooperative behavior, but Kindness and Hospitality are deeply human. Let's aim to be deeply human with each other. (edit by Ocaasi, 16:50, 8 September 2020‎)
  • This section may have been intended as a set of ostensive definitions, listing a sample of desirable behaviors that, taken together explain what "good citizenship" means. But if the UCoc is to be enforced, it is problematic. What if an editor just wants to add content, and is not interested in mentorship, coaching, "looking out for other editors" or thanking people. Can I now be banned for failing to demonstrate "good citizenship" or "thanktioned" for lack of gratitude if my thanks log isn't up to par? I think of these more as desirable than expected behaviors, and have no problem with any of them, as long as they are not mandated. I would immediately quit the project if they were ever enforced. Vexations (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Solidarity, let's drop it from the text. This is a confusing and superfluous word to use. It comes with historical baggage and may be used like "brotherhood" or an indication that Wikimedians are of the same political class. It comes with the imagery of group religion, group think, even radicalization, to the extent that to be seen to be in solidarity you can expect to be under peer pressure to raise your virtual fist to show support with your brothers. The single point being made of looking out for each other, is already covered by "good citizenship" which itself can be defined without this particular overtone. -- (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

    • I was concerned about the word, but initially not sure how to articulate my concern. "baggage" is the right way to express my concern. It is far too loaded a term.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • +1 more to drop solidarity. It works when everyone's goal is the same in the broader sense, but not for a code of conduct that applies to the editing domain. It might be misconstrued during article discussions when there are conflicting views relative to content and achieving NPOV - we don't want the "solidarity card" being pulled on us to warrant a block or t-ban. We want free thinkers, civil/collegial discussion but not group thinkers of like mind (solidarity) when trying to achieve neutrality in our articles. It simply doesn't fit. Civility and collegiality work well, and don't conflict with a healthy editing environment. Atsme📞📧 20:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone whose native language includes the term "good citizenship", I object to its inclusion here. I've been a volunteer with Wikipedia for almost 18 years, & I've never thought of any of my actions in terms of "good citizenship". The term of "citizenship" implies a set of responsibilities I am legally enforced to perform, actions I must do; I am not forced to make any of my contributions to any of the projects. I contribute as I see fit, where I see fit -- although I am always open to suggestions. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Llywrch: Agree. "Citizenship" is just flat-out stupid. Wikipedia is not a country, city, or entity that can send or force you to serve in an army. I have no loyalty to it in the way that I am loyal to my country, and I never will have. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • What, if anything, can it mean to "always assume good faith"? Clearly, there are time when people demonstrate bad faith, including while denying it. If taken at face value this would seem to mean that we are violating the code of conduct any time we confront a troll or vandal. - Jmabel (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is all terribly vague. Benjamin (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I also object to undefined "good citizenship". Deisenbe (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Compare the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines

I like the approach this section takes by laying out what we like rather than dislike, and it reminded me of the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines (KCG) by Richard Stallman (also, it's purpose section is a good example of what I meant in my comment on section 1). Skimming some of the comments, I think the current text is too brief and community-internal. It's a really wonderful start but I think the bolding is too aggressive, and the hierarchical bullet points is too formal. One thing the KCG does well is including guidance for those who perceive guidance (kinda like en:w:Project:Assume the assumption of good faith) such as "If you feel that someone has attacked you, or offended your personal dignity, please don't 'hit back' with another personal attack. That tends to start a vicious circle of escalating verbal aggression." Built into that document is an assumption that people will make mistakes or have a bad day, and it gives guidance on what to do if you see it happen (or have it happen to you). A lot of concerns from other volunteers seems to come from a fear that this could be enforced harshly against perceived slights, and adding in guidance that acknowledges human psychology would probably help resolve that concern (better to be explicit than implicit, as Jesse Noller said about the PSF CoC). Wugapodes (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Distinguishing based on accomplishments

"Nor will we distinguish based on accomplishments, skills or standing in the Wikimedia-projects or movement." - while the motivation behind this is understandable, I think in the naive way it is phrased, it is unworkable in practice. As a radically open movement, Wikimedia is vulnerable to all kinds of trolling by throwaway accounts, and such a rule would make that worse. While in general we should strive to assume good faith, contributors who have already invested serious time and effort have already proven their good faith, while new contributors haven't (and unfortunately some of them indeed lack it). we If ban any kind of differentiation between the two, that's an invitation for trolls, and will lead to the kind of problem that was seen in the Gamergate arbitration case.

Avoiding vested contributors who are above the rules is a good and important goal for the UCoC, but it requires more nuance than this. --Tgr (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A somwehat related issue is that Wikipedia does not really have mechanisms for settling content disputes. Individual issues can be decided, sure, but a determined editor with a strong bias can make new biased changes to the article basically forever, and as long as they are well-intentioned, or careful to appear that way, there is not much that can be done about it, and other editors need to continuously spend time (if the bias-pusher is determined and intelligent, lots of time) to counteract it. It all comes down to a race of wasting the other party's time until they give up - which is a bad race as more expert editors tend to have less time. This situation is one of the most common sources of incivility, in my experience. Being incivil to the problem user doesn't help the situation, of course, but it is a way to relieve frustration. Editors doing good work feel abandoned by the system (and rightly so - the system doesn't really have a solution to this problem), and if on top of that abandonment all they get is sanctions for expressing their frustration, that rarely goes well and effectively ends up with the problematic user successfully driving them away. I have seen this pattern quite a bit around pseudoscience, biased political views and similar. I have no idea what a good solution would be - just tolerating the incivil behavior is not good either. And obviously which side is pushing pseudoscience etc. is a judgement that the conduct enforcement body should not be involving themselves with. So, I don't really have an idea how or if I would incorporate this aspect into a code of conduct; just putting it out there. --Tgr (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Now changed to "Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement." But the critique remains. Of course we distinguish by accomplishments. That's what a meritocracy does. And Wikimedia is defined at least in part as meritocracy: Wikimedia power structure#Meritocracy. As all projects are open to anonymous and pseudonymous contributions and real life credentials do not count, quality of edits is the most important factor of standing. And standing is paramount in interactions. Otherwise elections for functions would not exist. I strongly object to this clause in whole and suggest to remove it. --h-stt !? 15:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

3 - Unacceptable behavior

3.1 - Harassment

what a reasonable person would

I’m really happy that we have a reasonableness test here. Where I work, my employer has adopted an industry Model Code of Conduct (it would look bad not to) which says, in effect, that if someone feels harassed then harassment has taken place. When I raised the issue with the consultant/trainer at our mandatory training session, her response was that the entry barrier to filing against harassment was such that I shouldn’t worry about vexatious or wrongful complaints(!). Anyone who has had to deal in real life with a person having borderline personality disorder or just a garden-variety manipulative psychopath would know how much damage such a person can cause by presenting themself as a victim. We need to have protections from those who would subvert the system, either inadvertently as a result of their world-view, or purposely as a way of defeating those they don’t like. Pelagic (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I would suggest a sub-item work-related psychological harassment/abuse (or some other suitable umbrella term): Deliberately presenting specific sentences/paragraphs chosen from previous activities and communication in order to mislead the reader(s) and show one's motives in a favourable light, creating a different context to denigrate a person or persons and/or present themself as a victim; intentional lying or distortion of facts for the same purpose. --.Toon (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest that we replace "unsollicited" and similar terms with something that is closer to "known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome and unrelated to improving the project" (this could obviously be worded better). It does two things; it adds some objectivity and reasonableness to the text and it allows for critical commentary that improves a user's contribution, unwelcome as such comments or reverts may be. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that because we're writing an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a dating site, that I am not interested in being propositioned for sex while "at work". Fixing or commenting on more than one of an editor's contributions when they are not complying with policy is not harassment or stalking, and reasonable people (ought to) know that. Vexations (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
"(given the cultural context and expectations of the people involved)" - this seems unacceptably vague. For example, person A claims that calling someone word W is perfectly acceptable in their cultural context, while person B says in their cultural context it is a deadly insult. Who meets the reasonableness test? If we call in person C, an admin, for example, then no matter how C rules, at least one of A or B will say that since C isn't part of their cultural context, C can't make a valid judgment. --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Where to draw the line between discussion of legal liability and threats?

If an editor believes that another editor may be incurring or causing others to incur a legal liability in any jurisdiction, how should they articulate that information in a way that can not be seen as a legal threat? 107.242.121.53 19:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Threats: Using the possibility of physical violence, legal action,... We should exclude "legal action". It's not universal enough. I blocked users in de-wiki for threatening legal actions, but in a UCoC we should apreciate that some of us even have the possibility of legal actions. They are prefered to "illegal actions". --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 23:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The shout "no legal threats", when made by a person who has had no legal training whatsoever is often as helpful as a medieval person shouting "heresy" or "witchcraft". If a person makes a legal threat, my suggested solution is to demand that both the accuser and the accused clearly identify who is about to be sued (real name), where they are about to be sued (which court) and why they are about to be sued (under which law). This will usually dampen things down. If that does not work, only then should action be taken. It is probably desirable that any administrator who handles such cases has passed at least one law module at a university (for example has passed "Business Law" as part of a management degree).Martinvl (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, legal actions are a common intimidation tactic and that should obviously be prevented, but they can also be the desperate last measure an individual has against a community that has wronged / is wronging them in some way that the community is refusing to realize. It is hard if not impossible to separate the two, but some flexibility is needed there. Also, legal threats are often the way non-community members communicate that an article is harming them, and while that is wrong, not listening to them is often even more wrong, so it is important to guide them to some more constructive path of explaining their complaint. --Tgr (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Right to Leave

Hello, I read the following sentence:

"Stalking: following a person across the project and repeatedly critiquing their work with the intent to upset or discourage them."

In general I agree that "stalking" is problematic, also given that we have partially a quite wiki specific phenomenon of stalking (following and disturbing someone's edits).

But I did stumble over this, because the idea came to me: what about telling someone that he should leave the wiki? I also understand the Code that it is not allowed to make someone's skills an issue (?). Does that mean, that under no circumstances one should be allowed to tell someone that he should leave the wiki? Ziko (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You're going to have to be careful with this one. What is the correct response when an editor notices a bad edit? Fix it, and then check the OTHER edits by that contributor to see if there's a pattern that needs a cleanup. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ziko: why would it be up to you to tell someone "should" leave the wiki? It isn't, I think it never is. Users may be blocked by sysops, but no individual user should demand that another user has to leave. Eissink (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC).
When discussing sanctions such as bans or indef blocks, those in favour are essentially advocating that someone should (be made to) leave the wiki. Pelagic (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Earlier this year I was engaged in some pretty extensive cleanup on an enwiki article about a convicted businessman who had tapped one of his employees as a PAID SPA to whitewash his article. After repeatedly telling this user that their POV version of the article were not going to be accepted, this user persisted in making their edits and arguing on talk pages. Another user advised them to pack their bags and get off the encyclopedia, a suggestion which I totally supported. I do not think this warrants sanction. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
We have had and will have in the future editors who simply are not up to writing an encyclopedia or at least not in the language they have chosen. And to be blunt, I just quote Jimbo: "Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing."(Edward Lewine: "The Encyclopedist's Lair". New York Times Magazine, 2007-11-18) Or as a former DeWP contributor once wrote: Can in "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is ambiguous: Everyone may, but not everyone is able to. I've been an admin in two projects and telling people that they are in the wrong place and should not contribute to Wikipedia is part of the definition of an admin's job. --h-stt !? 13:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Well said. One chronic problem en.wikipedia had in its earliest days was how to handle people who weren't the right fit for Wikipedia. The problem could be competence, or that they had no intent to write an encyclopedia, or they didn't play nice with others. (For the record, the worst to deal with were those who were civil & behaved well, yet either weren't competent or were subverting the encyclopedia another purpose, such as making it reflect their own idiosyncratic beliefs. These people frequently claimed that people who were asking/encouraging/begging them to leave were harassing them, which much too often ended with the other party leaving which reduced the number of valued contributors. It was only after formulating policies that addressed these two requirements that the community was able to quickly & effectively deal with these problem types.) -- Llywrch (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are users who shouldn't be writing. We have at least one in the Greek WP who clearly doesn't know orthography (spelling) and syntax, which is very annoying for a language with complicating grammar and rules (his english is better than mine, however). I told him a couple of times to improve his writing, and I was attacked by some others who seem to be politically close to the former.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

advances of any kind

I think you mean sexual advances, not any kind of forward movement. Vexations (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think in “sexual attention or advances” the sexual qualifies both attention and advances? Is it necessary to say “sexual attention or sexual advances”? Is there are better way to phrase it? Pelagic (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd just repeat sexual. "sexual attention or sexual advances" or "sexual attention/advances". 2001:770:10:300:0:0:86E2:510C 01:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"Sexual or romantic" would cover cases in which one person thinks it's sexual and the other one doesn't. It would make it clear we're covering things like asking for a date even if you don't specifically ask for sexual favors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that the term "advances" should be clarified by the adjective "inappropriate" (or something similar). Consider the case where an unattached male Wikipedian realises that he lives in the same town as female Wikipedian and as a first step to possibly starting a relationship would like to know whether or not she has partner. He invites her to a coffee bar with her "husband/partner if she would prefer that". I would not regard such an "advance" as being inappropriate - she can decline the invitation without any loss of face in whatever way she sees fit. However a second invitation could be inappropriate. Regardless of context, good faith should be assumed before accussing somebody of acting improperly and if they have unwittingly acted improperly appologies should be accepted - they might just have misread the situation. Martinvl (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Qualify it as "unwanted sexual advances" and drop "of any kind" - iow, the recipient has asked for it to stop and the donor refuses/repeats the behavior - then it becomes unwanted. We joke around all the time to relieve tension, and it's just wrong if banter among a small group of adults or between two adults ends up causing an admin action. I've also seen innocent TP watching be misconstrued as "stalking" so let's be careful here. I've had both and can easily spot the difference. Atsme📞📧 20:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"following a person across the project and repeatedly critiquing their work with the intent to upset or discourage them."

So I'm not allowed to repeatedly revert and warn obvious spammers and vandals? Yes, when I leave a series of warning templates, I'm trying to "discourage" the user from spamming or vandalizing. That's the whole point. And there is, after all, usually a "person" behind even the most disruptive accounts. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is written without any understanding of what an admin's job looks like. If this gets in the final draft, it will doubtlessly be used as an excuse by every wikilawyering troll whose every edit has to be fixed or reverted by unthanked admins. Metaknowledge (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"Stalking"

In English Wikipedia this term is deprecated: see w:Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_1#Wikihounding.--GZWDer (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, “hounding” would be a safer term. Pelagic (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Prohibiting "repeated sarcasm"? What a brilliant idea! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say that, though. It says that "[i]n some cases ... repeated ... sarcasm ... may qualify as [an] insult[] collectively". Which definitely is a vague statement, granted, but it doesn't mean a ban on repeated sarcasm -- just on some particular uses of sarcasm. In principle, this seems to reflect common sense. If I tell you repeatedly "You're such a clever guy!" after criticising your position, certainly at some point it is tantamount to saying "You're an idiot!" (which would arguably constitute an "insult" and thus a type of harassment under the code). — Pajz (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A brilliant idea, Andy! :-) Actually, I agree with Pajz that this should be normally be well understood. Ziko (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I see what you did there, Andy. Can you repeat it? Oh noes, am I trolling? But to take Pajz' point, I feel that the current wording qualified by “in some cases” is not problematic. I also think it makes sense to classify it as a kind of insult rather than a separate form of abuse. In fact, sarcasm need not be repeated to be insulting, but perhaps insults need to be repeated to count as harassment. Pelagic (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Everything can be a problem "in some cases". Making a rule against sarcasm is just stupid, and encourages me to ignore the code altogether. Metaknowledge (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
If sarcasm stays in as unacceptable behavior, assumedly you couldn't ignore it for long, because doing things against the UCoC would come with sanctions. Although we will have to wait until the post the draft enforcement sections are posted for review to see what the planned sanctons will be. Libcub (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The probability that English Wikipedia spends significant time and energy enforcing a "no-sarcasm" rule is probably lower than the probability you live to age 200, no matter what the UCoC says. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's also going to be very easy to make people police sarcasm while assuming good faith. Distinguishing sarcasm from irony doesn't require knowledge of intent at all. Nemo 13:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Taking yourself as the measure of things, you might underestimate the discernment of others. Eissink (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC).
If you think sarcasm & irony are always obvious, have a read of Conservapedia. Sometimes the most effective sarcasm is the most subtle & hard to detect. Or maybe not. -- Llywrch (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Sarcasm in case of the occasional gloating is fine or at least normal and perhaps even funny, but sarcasm as a lifestyle, as a chosen personality trait, is a disgrace: some people just seem to make it a sport to act condescending all the time, displaying an internalized arrogance in every contribution to conversations, people who stick mainly to Talk pages and seem to think Wikipedia is mostly a perfect forum for them to show off. It's not really hard to recognize for people who are sensitive to the proverbial pains in the ass. Eissink (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC).

Two problems

Unsolicited sexual attention or advances of any kind towards others is a dangerous phrase in my humble opinion. You always wanted to promote and support cultural diversity in our movement. Therefore, you should realise that in many cultures of the world it is perfectly acceptable — even in good tone! — to say something along "You look pretty on that photo" or "You are very feminine". And you would probably like to block for it, because it was "unsolicited". Well, what about Sexual attention or advances of any kind towards others against their wishes? Maybe it could be better? Maybe not? And the second problem is about following a person across the project and repeatedly critiquing their work with the intent to upset or discourage them. If I notice someone who makes edits requiring intervention (but not a ban outright), I follow them across the project in order to repair their mistakes and explain what they did wrong. I understand that now I will be eligible for a punishment if only they report that they feel "discouraged" because of my actions? Clearly you should reword or remove this fragment, thank you very much. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • If unsolicited sexual attention or advances are forbidden, presumably that means solicited ones are acceptable? But wouldn't the solicitation then be unsolicited, and therefore forbidden? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think my general view is - if you wouldn't do it in a workplace, don't do it here. On social media, women tell other women they look gorgeous all the time. Ritchie333 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • And some cultures of the world would be more than happy to ban the participation of certain members of the community. So I fail to see how your point has any merit besides "harassing women is fine because lots of people think it's fine". Isabelle 🔔 14:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    The message you wanted to deliver by making a link to the "LGBT rights in Russia" article isn't clear to me. Are you implying that certain members may be banned from participation in Russian Wikimedia community based on their sexual orientation and/or identity? Adamant.pwn (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I was saying some cultural values are antiquated and possibly harmful to other members of the community, and should be done with. Just because harassing women is normal is some places of the world (mine included), doesn't mean the UCoC should allow it. Isabelle 🔔 01:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not really about "harassing women is normal", it's about "is this particular action a harassment at all" as the definition of harassment is subject to cultural values. It's more about the border between appropriate and inappropriate behavior may vastly vary across societies. While some are "antiquated and outdated" by your perception, there surely are some cultures in which something you would find normal is considered "possibly harmful". For example, I heard that simply being in woman's sight wearing shorts might be considered harassment in Chechnya. Adamant.pwn (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment, Isabelle. I have no problems with seeing your point, culture shock is a real thing. We have to ensure that everybody feels safe here, so if some comments or invitations make you feel ashamed or even endangered, you express this feeling and your interlocutor can be rightly expected to discontinue them. On the other hand, though, you surely realize that banning certain members without substantive ground is objectively wrong (on the basis of any consistent ethical system), while showing interest or making positive comments about someone (be it man, woman or non-binary) is not. Actually, I am a bit tired with Westerners who understand "cultural diversity" as taking nice, exotic flavour out of someone's culture and trying to rip out any tradition they happen to dislike because of their different upbringing. In some way, it is degrading. If someone was upbrought to like something that is not outright harmful to them, you are in no moral position to say them that it is wrong to like it. And, indeed, many people in the world were upbrought to like having their look praised and some kind of fascination in them expressed. It is no kind of harassing. By the way, it is perfectly normal for many pairs of Wikipedians to deepen their relationships with time (shared hobbies, mindsets and so on) and with current wording of the discussed rule, nearly any attempt of such getting closer would be punishable ("unsolicited advances of any kind"). I hope that I managed to explain these facts sufficiently. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Marcowy Człowiek: The entire point of the UCoC is to create an environment where people, specially minorities, don't need to feel unsafe. Just because some women might be okay with being catcalled (I'll assume good faith and just ignore your "she was asking for it" shtick), doesn't mean all of them are, specially in an environment such as this one. Women shouldn't have to walk around with a sign saying "Please don't make sexual advances on me" around their neck. Isabelle 🔔 20:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Isabelle: It is really nice to hear from you again. Sadly, reducing my lengthy text to "victim blaming" (barring that patronising good faith "assumption") suggests that you could pay more attention to it. Actually, you did not even refer to most of my arguments. Culture shock is a normal thing, but it could be useful to try a mutually civilised dialogue instead of closing in the mindset "my values are higher and better because they are mine". Please, try to read what I wrote and address these arguments properly if you want to continue the discussion. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Which is the point of using the word "unwanted". If I tell a MOTAS (=member of the appropriate sex) that I think they are "attractive", & receive the response "Don't comment on my looks", that should be the end of that. If I ignore that request, then I have crossed the line & correctly should be sanctioned for it. This is how it's supposed to work in the non-Internet world; single people looking for a partner will make comments like that in order to find a partner; reasonable ones will respect the wishes of others; the unreasonable ones, who do not, will be shown the door. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
You are deeply right. The word "unsolicited" is not acceptable, because it would make any attempt of beginning a relationship — or, in many cases, mere courtesy — punishable! "Unwanted" is definitely better, but I still prefer my version "against their wishes", because you do not know what somebody could want until they express their wishes. Yet, English is not my mother-tongue, so I can be mistaken in these subtleties. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
In the modern English liberal rhetoric, "against their wishes" does not require they specify their wishes. Instead, you have to somehow (telepathy?) determine their wishes beforehand, as even asking what their wishes are could be interpreted as offensive. Anomie (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe then "against their consent"? The only other alternative I can think of would be the standing use of safe words, but seeing how the reputation of the US is in the toilet, I'd prefer that the latest American innovation not be introducing jargon from the BDSM world. -- Llywrch (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, it is much more useful to have an unambigous protocol as to how to make it clear (either to a given individual, or to the community at large) that advances are unwelcome, rather than to say that all advances are taboo. "Unsolicited" adds nothing: soliciting an advance is itself an advance. Under the way this is written, anyone who ever makes a first move is in violation.

Perhaps there should be a firm rule against making sexual advances of any sort on the wiki or using the associated email (and maybe in some other contexts I'm not immediately thinking of); "solicited" or not wouldn't even enter the picture. But at a face-to-face event? Unless we are literally going to say that it is a violation of our policies for anyone ever to hook up at WMF events (which seems an unlikely policy) it is much more important to focus on how someone can quickly and easily indicate that advances are unwelcome than to have to decide whether "want to go for coffee?" or "nice shirt" was a prohibited sexual advance. - Jmabel (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

    • @Jmabel:, what do you mean by "using the associated email"? That would imply that people always use a separate email for Wikimedia. --AVRS (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @AVRS: I mean emailing someone via "email this user", where they haven't voluntarily given you their email address. - Jmabel (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not a good idea to build a Universal Code of Conduct on US morals. In some cultures you do give a woman proper respect by noticing her, in other cultures you show respect by not commenting on her sex at all. In some culture it is a sign of respect when work-titles have correct gender (Germany), in some cultures work-titles are genderless (Norway). It has nothing to do with “sexual attention”, although I have been reverted on pretty straight-forward edits where someone claimed the language was sexualized. Trying to shame someone because they describe someone the same way they describe themselves are not very wise. (Edits were system messages using proper gender set by the users themselves, and another user claiming all messages should be genderless no matter what the users choose.) — Jeblad 12:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is probably a terrible idea because it's arbitrary and inherently discriminatory, but I felt like throwing it out there in case it inspires a better idea. Maybe the policy could ban men making the first move toward women, and ignore other gender/orientation combinations. Because that seems to be the kind of interaction that is by far most likely to result in Elevatorgate-type controversies. I find it hard to imagine a straight guy getting really upset about a woman asking him on a date, anyway; he'd probably at most just say no. 70.172.136.61 01:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In the real world, I have told friends I am not in a relationship with (usually female but sometimes male) they are looking healthy, well-presented and well-dressed and their choice of how to look has served them well. I have not had any issue with this at all; yet I fear that if I ever stated this honest opinion to a fellow Wikipedian, no matter how confident I was that it would be totally platonic, I would be ostracised. Ritchie333 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A (fictional) case study on potentially inappropriate advances

Let me give a couple of examples to illustrate some issues. (Please note that while loosely derived from real-life events, these are fictional and not based on any actual Wikipedians):

  1. Amber Violet is a 27-year old college lecturer, respected administrator and an expert in 19th century women's literature. Her userpage shows a picture of her giving a speech at her college about editing Wikipedia. A brand new user posts on their talk page, "Hey, you look nice, any chance of a date?"
  2. GirliePopFan45 is a 19-year old student who, in her own words, "is like the biggest Taylor Swift fan evaaaah lol". She posts on Amber's talk page, "Hey, I saw the speech ZOMG where did you get that dress, you look like mega awesome in it, I sooo want one lol and wow your hair is amazing"
  3. Bruce Plaid is a 32-year old high school history teacher. He's spent the past year working with Amber on a number of articles and helping her with research, and together they've written 3 FAs. They've exchanged emails and discovered they have the same taste in politics, travel and cats. One night after three glasses of wine, Bruce emails Amber, saying, "Amber, I've got to say it's been great talking and working with you and you're one of the greatest editors on Wikipedia. I don't suppose we could have coffee and lunch some time?" Unbeknownst to Bruce, Amber has had bad experiences with relationships and prefers to spend her spare time looking after her cats and writing articles on Wikipedia. She doesn't answer the email, wondering what, if anything, she should say in response. Inferring that the lack of response means "no", Bruce forgets about it and starts writing in a different topic area.

Now, in my view case 1 is worth a block, if it's not a troll, it's somebody who lacks sufficient clue about how a workplace environment operates. Case 2 is annoying, but that's it. Case 3 is more subtle; as Bruce took the rejection in good standing gracefully, I don't think there is anything to answer here and would not take action. I wonder if anyone else disagrees? Ritchie333 (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, thank you for taking your time to write these case studies, they can be extremely useful. Of course, I agree that in case 1 the new user should be blocked immediately — and in most of the projects he would be, on the basis of "clearly not here to create an encyclopedia" or similar. I have seen even more extreme situations, like someone posting on the page "Requests for administrators" something along "I request to have sex with administrator X". Block is the only option left. In case 2, I agree that it is nothing more than annoying and definitely does not deserve a block. Maybe, but only if such comments were continued despite Amber expressing her dislike of them, it could be considered to selectively block for Girlie editing of Amber's talk page. I believe that case 2 covers equally also messages like "Hey, you look nice, I really like that photo" made by users with any meaningful input in Wikipedia. And in case 3, I think that Bruce behaved perfectly and taking any action against him would be an abomination of Wikipedia values. Sadly, the proposed wording of the discussed rule would make all three cases punishable, which is why I frown at it. Thank you once again for your effort. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I disagree. I don't think any of the three examples you cited is worthy of a block in its own right. (1) and (2) may be off-topic and the user should be warned, but a block should only be merited if said user refuses to stop after being told not to, in which case they may be blocked for harassment. (3) depends on Bruce's ability to understand non-verbal cues, which are not universally understood; if Bruce was the person who sent Amber the message in (1) I wouldn't think that should be punishable on its own. Deryck C. 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsolicited

  • Currently any sexual advances that are unsolicited are prohibited. Unless someone is walking around a WMF event with a sign saying "all flirting pre-authorised" this is a 100% prohibitive (since they couldn't let someone know without that too being a sexual advance). Given that I know of several couples who met at Wikipedia events, and thus everyone who isn't still a couple as well, this is a very non-practical note. There are other restrictions that can by all means added, included an amended version here, but the current phrasing is just foolish. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. This would be better worded as "unwanted". People usually want complementary &/or friendly attention, which sometimes can be flirtatious, even if unsolicited. But a simple & clear "no" should be enough to stop any unwanted attention, sexual or otherwise. (And if the person addressed cannot say "no" due to cultural norms, well, the Internet is a different culture for all of us, where people are often forced to be more direct than she/he usually are.) -- Llywrch (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Even @Llywrch: "unwanted" is not right, since it might be unknowingly unwanted. Demonstrated as unwanted, perhaps (with demonstrated being, as they say en-wiki, "broadly construed". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Nevertheless "unwanted" is an improvement on "unsolicited", right? Perhaps even better would be to interpret "unwanted" as the inverse of "overtly consensual", much as example #3 in the set of interactions Ritchie333 provides in another thread on this page. Specifically, person A makes an unsolicited advance on B, & B does not respond; per this interpretation, A should then assume silence != consent, conclude the answer is "no" & act accordingly. (Acting otherwise might end up with A running afoul of the UCoC.) The goal is to balance the need for a safe place (on one hand) with the natural need for people to form intimate connections with others -- which is not always sexual in intent. (And I admit this might not be the right balance -- although I insist one needs to be found.) -- Llywrch (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
"Unsolicited" is better than "unwanted" becuase the agent can only find out if their advances were unwanted after the fact, whereas it is at least theoretically possible to know whether they were solicited or not beforehand. It not practical to make a code of conduct where people don't know whether they're allowed to do something until after other people have reacted to it. But yes, "unsolicited" bars all attempts at starting a relationship, so if someone can think of an even better word than that, then I'm in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
"Inappropriate" might be a better word - though what is appropriate in some cases might not be appropriate in others it allows flexibility to take into account the circumstances surrounding any incident and allows the cultures of the involved editors to be taken into account. Should an editor behave in a manner that would have been reasonable in his or her own culture but be unreasonable in the other person's culture or if there was a genuine misunderstanding regarding circumstances, an exchange of appologies is expected and is sufficient. Persistent inappropriate advances will however be taken seriously. Martinvl (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If a little friendly banter or innuendos are exchanged (flirtatiously) and the recipient objects - an apology combined with not repeating the behavior should be adequate. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As I mentioned above, if unwanted advances continue after being asked to stop the first time, then it is a problem that needs to be addressed. If I'm going to be a party to an editor being blocked or t-banned, I'd rather it be for gross incivility, relentless hounding or character assassination rather than a harmless/humorous flirtatious exchange. Seriously, anyone who is beyond puberty and into early adulthood knows the difference, or should know. Atsme📞📧 20:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, some people do not know the difference. (Some of us have had an inadequately social childhood/teenage years than others; this is why unintentional harassment happens.) But we are safe to assume everyone knows the meaning of "no". -- Llywrch (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Just going to point out that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of couples who have met through Wikimedia-related activities. One or both partners have been (or are currently) Board members, WMF staff, WMF executives, chapter or user group officials, administrators, stewards, editors, photographers, and illustrators. Several of these relationships have gone on to parenthood, marriage, or longterm commitments. There are teenagers now whose parents got together over Wikipedia/Wikimedia activities. All of those relationships started with one or the other of the partners saying or doing something to test the waters to see if there was a chance the other would want to explore the possibility of a more personal relationship. Until someone asks, they may not have reason to believe that their "advances" are unwanted in many cases; of course, there are plenty of cases where it's obvious or should be easy to figure out. I think we need to be very careful in the language here. Volunteer activities and places of employment have historically been two of the most common ways that longterm partners have met. Risker (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this thread may be trying to come up with too refined of a balance between acceptable & unacceptable social behavior: I believe the UCoC is an attempt to set up a minimum standard, not provide a "one-size-fits-all" solution. (I may be wrong in this belief.) If a word like "inappropriate" is acceptable to the whole, then the decision to further restrict possible behavior with wording such as "unsolicited" or "unwanted" (& their non-English equivalents) can be left to the individual projects. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Trolling

Trolling is only abusive when targeted. Generally provocative or disingenuous comments should not be sanctionable. Pelagic (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that non-targeted "provocative or disingenuous comments" are inherently trolling - the two definitely aren't synonymous. However, nor would I say that trolling is only abusive (or at least only something to be prohibited) when targeted. If someone was going around trolling the site, they still should be shown the door because they're disrupting the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. For me trolling in WP is targeted--to the site, or perhaps even to the internet more broadly, if the person trolls other sites as well. Regardless of whether or not a troll is targeting an individual, group, articles, set of related articles, etc., to me the behavior is still tolling. Libcub (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Designed"?

The opening sentence "This includes any behavior designed primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person." -- "Designed" is an odd word to use here. (I suspect this was selected by someone whose knowledge of English is as a second language.) It would be more natural would be to say "intended". -- Llywrch (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Intended" requires mind-reading. Maybe more of that reasonable person language? "...any behavior that a reasonable person would consider likely to intimidate, outrage, or upset another person"? Schazjmd (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, your criticism is equally applicable to the use of "design", which implies deliberate thought. We humans may not be able to read each others minds, but we do communicate. And often one communicates his/her intentions behind the behavior with unambiguous clarity. There is also the issue that some behavior is only done with malicious intent. But your experience may be different. -- Llywrch (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I too think that the language here is not ideal, but from a different perspective. In US labor law, intentionality is not part of the definition of "sexual harassment". w:en:Hostile work environment gives the example of sexually-suggestive photos displayed in the workplace. The person who put up the photos may not have intended to harass anyone, but this behavior can still harass. I would like to see UCoC remove intentionality in the definition of harassment. Libcub (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Things people have a choice about

In the section “insults” there are too heterogenous things put together. While age and sex are not chosen, for appearance, religion, and usually intelligence people are responsible. If someone stinks (as this UCoC is supposed to apply offline), this needs to be attacked; if someone is obese, it is according to the current knowledge on medicine to recommend him to lose some of that fat. And some people really need to be told they are not as intelligent (in a particular matter) as they think they are, it helps. And obviously, language fluency is a very important matter in the dictionary projects of Wikimedia, meaning Wiktionary, and is regularly legimitately called out; people of course get banned for introducing errors in their content because of lacking language knowledge, and not the one who noted their ignorance. Name calling, slurs or stereotypes is generally just added for the sake of rhetorics; it just shouldn’t be the sole content someone posts of course. The line is drawn by whether remarks relate to a topic. This is really offensive: If someone is bloviating without relation to the project. But spicing up things with a bit of passion is natural. Mockery, sarcasm, aggression are not wrong. Fay Freak (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. To me, mockery, sarcasm, and aggression are indeed wrong in the Wikimedia-sphere, and I would like to see the UCoC disallow them, as a form of disrespect and/or harassment. Libcub (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Harassment is an ongoing pattern. Mockery, sarcasm, and aggression could be part of harassment, but in and of themselves, they cannot be.
I agree more with Fay Freak here than with Libcub. I suspect this may be due to different perspectives from different communities -- I spend most of my WMF time on the English Wiktionary, where there is generally less bureaucracy and fewer rules than Wikipedia. While I agree with Libcub that mockery, sarcasm, and aggression can be used as forms of disrespect, I would like to point out that they are not used solely for such purposes.
The English Wiktionary has so far not needed any such restrictive rule framework as that described here. Having such a framework imposed from outside the community would be most unwelcome and unhelpful. Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Encouraging harm to oneself

In most jurisdictions man has the legal right to kill himself. So it should be allowed to encourage someone to commit suicide. If the encouragement is really meant it’s probably just uttered because of compassion and on a morally high level. If it is not is really meant then it should not be taken serious. Fay Freak (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions it is legal to commit suicide, but illegal to assist in it or encourage it. Moreover, "law of defense of a third person" typically applies also to preventing suicidal actions. I guess it does not require Einstein's intelligence to work out why it is so. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The thought of course is that if one has the legal right to kill oneself, then also one has the right that willing people help with it. This was part of the reasoning why this year the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany declared void § 217 StGB (which had been such an illegalizing provision introduced five years ago), mentioned margin number 208: “Der Grundrechtsschutz erstreckt sich auch auf die Freiheit, hierfür bei Dritten Hilfe zu suchen und sie, soweit sie angeboten wird, in Anspruch zu nehmen.” Accordingly, at the very least all such laws violate Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is in all of Europe except Belarus, if not making blue every country on that map having human rights, which of course only represents the government views, not the real legal situation. Else I question why one would in a project’s code specifically regulate behaviours that are either already outlawed by the government or explicitly permitted. Why are open-content creators trying to outclass the strictest of the regimes out there which people suffer? Why are they imitating the closed-source and closed-mind world? It is a race to the bottom. Fay Freak (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that we work to make Wikipedia a place where nobody says: "Go kill yourself", "I will kill you", "f*ck yourself", "I gonna f*ck you" etc. Ziko (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this may be pushing this reasoning a bit far. We don't know what individuals' situation is like on the other end, so we can never be confident such statements are being made appropriately. And I'm not sure what evidence you have that most statements of this type are either meant compassionately or not taken seriously. The "damage" from not being able to make a genuine encouragement when it might be appropriate is going to minuscule, as opposed to suggesting that it could be permitted. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The “damage” ratio is if course to be doubted if we assume people have judgment and don’t just randomly strew encouragements for self-harm or suicide, apart from the circumstance that the “damage” argument only works with consequentialist ethics.
That place where nobody says X would be fine, but one would need to make the world a place where nobody desires to say that. But I think everyone should, in general (barring cases where it is the sole content or off-topic), have the right to say “go kill yourself”, “f*ck yourself”, though it is rarely commendable – I cannot judge from my end how well someone on his end judges the individual’s situation on the other end. This is the whole problem of codes of conduct: Why are they apodictically trying to be smarter than the individuals who have to handle interactions day by day? As if it didn’t work before now one wants to make the provisions to read even longer, and interaction more complicated by adding the need to subsume under some aloof standard, as if one didn’t have principles before. And all from an Anglocentric standpoint, which is already a failure. I want to point out that the offensive nature of common curses very much depends on the language it is uttered in. Believe it or not, “I will kill you” is said by loving Russian mothers regularly to their children when chiding (убью) . Apart from that I point out that this draft is not only about Wikipedia; that project is already a failure, because of the red tape, and arguments over whether someone violated the wording of that CoC would only make it funnier, although with the best intentions or hopes I still would not support it for Wikipedia. Fay Freak (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
What proportion of messages encouraging suicide are actually sent out of some compassionate pro-euthanasia stance? I would guess nearly none. Almost every time people say things like "kys", it is verbal abuse/harassment. The cost-benefit analysis seems to point toward prohibiting such messages. This isn't 4chan, we should have higher standards for conduct than "not literally illegal". PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that considering all encouragement of suicide as unacceptable would be very inhumane in some cases. I would suggest a new category under harassment--bullying, which could possibly subsume insults, threats, cruel encouragement of self-harm, doxing, and trolling. Libcub (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The wording is problematic. For instance, linking this talk page is arguably an example of "encouraging someone else to commit self-harm". (I unwittingly clicked on a link; now I've suffered psychological harm and I regret it.) Yet we need to be able to solicit contributions from existing and potential volunteers, even when we're asking a sacrifice. Nemo 20:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the hurtful and offensive double standard from your draft

Dear Editors, I saw the "Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review" linked from elsewhere on the web. I read it and made this edit: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review&diff=20441226&oldid=20440639 which I summarized as "removed double standard". It was pointed out that rather than edit the document, there is a talk page where I should add my comment. I clicked that link, and saw the same thoughts clearly already written by by others (above where I put this comment). Everyone in the discussion has it right: "If unsolicited sexual attention or advances are forbidden, presumably that means solicited ones are acceptable? But wouldn't the solicitation then be unsolicited, and therefore forbidden?" Therefore please sort this out. Yes, as others point out, there should be a firm rule against making sexual advances of any sort, including soliciting sexual attention. A double standard in the Wikipedia draft for the Universal Code of Conduct, regarding sexual harassment, that editors are aware of, is unacceptable. It makes me feel like you are wantonly and callously disregarding my dignity as a human being, and I find it hurtful and offensive, especially when I see that you are perfectly aware of it. This makes it wanton, callous, and repeated, a systemic problem. It is written in this discussion clearly. Therefore please remove this double standard of which you are well aware. Sort it out in your next draft: remove this double standard, showing that you live up to the very principles you are discussing and do not continue to include offensive and callous language that takes away from the dignity of anyone. The above discussion is all fine and correct and contains all you need to fix the issue, if you are serious about human rights and dignity. It doesn't need another 5,000 words of discussion. Take action and fix the double standard, which is obvious to you all. Thank you. (Revision as of 06:37, 11 September 2020 by 2a02:ab88:cbc:1080:64fe:ebd4:dfbe:9b38)

I do not see this complaint as sufficiently clear to be actionable. It may be obvious to the writer what they are referring to, but not necessarily to the reader. Expecting the reader to research the link given is likely to result in no action taken. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: I looked at the link and it does not make it any clearer to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You clicked my link with the requested change but did you read the section of this talk page where everyone else describes the issue? Please read this talk page and then remove this hurtful, offensive, degrading and callous double standard. 1. Read the complaints on this page. 2. Make the change. It is easily actionable and a wanton disregard to what multiple commenters have clearly described. It is a hurtful and callous violation of dignity and human rights. Make the change. Many people have described what is wrong with the phrasing. I have given an actionable change. Stop willfully violating dignity and human rights by ignoring objections many people raised and stop gaslighting me by using weasel words such as "Expecting the reader to research the link given" when I did not start by expecting the reader to research anything: I made the required change, which was reverted. This callous disregard to rights and dignity and gaslighting by referring to the burden of having to read complaints is monstrous. Fix the issue. If you don't want to do any reading of this page then make this change:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review&diff=20441226&oldid=20440639

This response is callous and monstrous. I am offended by your response. 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:DC6E:DAE3:FB54:6607 00:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Whoever you are, haven't you realized that you have been circling your reasoning? You haven't explained why the phrase offends you, and "double standard" doesn't look adequate, does it? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
your dehumanizing language "whoever you are" offends me. "double standard" doesn't look adequate, does it? - yes it is adequate. Please try to practice empathy and the other conduct that is described in the draft, rather than reply again with dehumanizing and offensive language. Actually, your dehumanizing language makes me think that you intend to callously gaslight me. I don't need to defend why being dehumanized is offensive or "whoever you are" is offensive. It is obvious on its face. It is an affront to my dignity and basic human rights. As for "double standard doesn't look adequate". You can read the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard - " double-standard arises when two or more people, groups, organizations, circumstances, or events are treated differently even though they should be treated the same way". Stop gaslighting by asking me to explain why everyone should be treated the same. It is obvious to anyone who isn't a callous and offensive abuser. 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:21A7:A96F:FC56:FC21 10:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what point this anon IP is trying to make, & their responses to reasonable questions appears to be outright trolling. I believe this thread of the discussion should be closed now. It is going nowhere. Is there anyone here with Admin rights on Meta who can take appropriate action? -- Llywrch (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Llywrch, I think you're writing in earnest but if you read the above you will find nobody asked me a question - just attacked me. Let me quickly address what you've written: you say I wasn't clear, and write "I have no idea what point this anon IP is trying to make"!
Let me try again: I find one sentence in the draft to be personally offensive to me (it offends me). I don't know about anyone else but it offends me. I changed it when I saw it, before I had seen any discussion about it. It was reverted (as a matter of policy) and I was asked to discuss on the talk page. So, I followed the advice I was given and added my comment to the talk page instead. Before I did so I saw that the technicals of the offensive sentence were already identified as a problem and discussed in detail on this page, however in a somewhat legalistic way. I added the information about how it affects me personally and why I would like it changed. Before I made the edit I didn't even know about the discussion, but it just shows that everyone else also knows that it is wrong. So, I hope this is clearer. What I contribute to the discussion is just my personal story that I find the draft language offensive to me and dehumanizing. I hope this makes it clear! 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:BC9E:3AAA:D593:6771 23:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This is not clear. You have not identified what groups you believe are affected in a “double standard” and your personal offense is secondary to the point; if you’re going to try to make a change, write a decent argument as to why it would be beneficial, not just that you’re offended by something that no one here could reasonably identify as something likely to offend someone. Note that this comment is a reflection on your behavior in this discussion and not a comment on the validity of the line in question. Vermont (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Vermont. You said "you have not identified what groups you believe are affected". I would say anyone who is either the target of, or exposed to, someone soliciting sexual attention.(This is more common in a real-world setting.)I am in the this group by the way.However, please note that all this was discussed in prior discussions above, I am really only adding my personal offense.The issue is very clear to everyone here. Please remove the offensive language (now that I have identified it for you). Thank you. 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:BC9E:3AAA:D593:6771 01:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"I would say anyone who is either the target of, or exposed to, someone soliciting sexual attention." -- This is a wide-open group of people. If you are serious, then this is an impractical request, & will not be handled here; if you are not serious, then you are trolling. In either case, this thread is a waste of time, & again I request any Admin following this discussion to close this thread & deal with this disruption accordingly. Tensions are already pronounced enough over this document that we don't need anyone stirring up trouble for their own entertainment. -- Llywrch (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I already requested closure, but admins wouldn't intervene. Rather they advised that we avoid interacting with the IP editor for now. George Ho (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Llywrch, this is my comment section, on improving the code of conduct by removing a couple of words that I, personally, genuinely, find incredibly offensive and a double standard and an affront to my dignity as a human being. (Because it explicitly denotes that it is okay to solicit sexual attention from me at in-person meetings.) It is not a "disruption". It is a call to remove incredibly offensive language from an official code of conduct. You agree the change would protect "a wide-open group of people". In my personal opinion it is not "impractical" (as you write) to remove callous and offensive language that is admittedly a double standard, and which many people in earlier sections (before I ever showed up) identified as problematic, and making a small change (six words in my suggestion) that would protect a wide-open group of people from solicitations of sexual attention. I can assure you I do not find this discussion "entertaining" (you say I wrote my responses "for their own entertainment.") Several people have insulted me while agreeing that the language I'm complaining about is a double standard, and while agreeing that fixing the offensive language would protect a wide-open group of people. The drafting committee should make this change, and also should note for themselves that nobody stepped in with empathy, understanding, or support, as I was attacked and called names in this thread. You can do better. 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:C1DE:F689:EF71:3911 13:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
You still have not made note as to how a double standard exists. How does the text, at present, apply differently to two distinct groups? Vermont (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't want to repeat the extensive and unanimous discussion that already occurred in previous sections. Everyone is aware of the problem: the text at present explicitly denotes that it is acceptable to solicit sexual attention. So the double standard is between people who solicit sexual attention and people who give sexual attention. For some context about why this is inappropriate: I am in the group of people who, in sexualized places such as an event where strangers dance closely with each other and strangers kiss, give sexual attention to people who solicit it or might be receptive. (Shocking, I know.) This is appropriate because of the context and place that it occurs. Of course, I don't just grab someone, but I do give them sexual attention there. It is not appropriate at wikimedia events. The draft standard, heinously and offensively, allows people to solicit sexual attention from me at Wikimedia events, which is wildly inappropriate and offensive, as well as a double standard. It is an affront to my dignity. Wikimedia events should not be sexualized places and it is totally inappropriate for anyone to solicit sexual attention there. Rather than explicitly condoning this behavior through a double standard, it should instead be explicitly prohibited at wikimedia events, for example with words such as my edit - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review&diff=20441226&oldid=20440639 . The current draft is a heinous affront to dignity and human rights. Everyone is aware of the problem. The drafting committee needs to fix this wanton, callous, hurtful and offensive double standard. It is incredibly hurtful, at least to me. It also opens me to unwanted solicitation, which it should prohibit. (Of course, at the cost of prohibiting wanted solicitation as well. That is a small price to pay for dignity, human rights, and equal treatment.) I urge the drafting committee to resolve this offensive issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:C1DE:F689:EF71:3911 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence"

I'm sure I've mentioned in passing that BedrockPerson is stupid, and his many sockpuppet accounts are easy to identify, which is a direct consequence of his stupidity. Oh no — should I be punished along with the vandal I've blocked for calling him stupid? Of course not — a blanket ban on calling people dumb is, well, dumb. Metaknowledge (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I would be quite happy if calling another contributor "stupid" were sanctionable under the UCoC. Libcub (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Really appreciative of the name-calling by the way. I'm sure if reflects great on the rest of the admin team who are somehow above using their position to knock around their subordinates' heads. 47.20.177.163 04:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Race

Twice in the draft I find the term "race". We have one human race, so what is meant by that? Is the text promoting a world view where humankind is seperated into different races? I thought that we left that school of thinking behind in 1945. I would not sign any paper that uses the concept of race if I don't have to. --Gereon K. (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's something, that I don't like as well, to establish such debunked concepts like different human races in this code. I had hoped, the concept of races was eradicated thoroughly as my criminal ancestors, that used this concept as a tool for their genocides in Namibia and the Holocaust, capitulated to the liberator armies in 1945. At least in anything official, you can't of course eradicate such stuff from the minds of people by decree. The concept of different human races must not be anything even remotely supported by a code of conduct. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
But in many parts of the world (not just USA), disadvantaging or vilifying someone based on "race" is actually illegal (positive discrimination for disadvantaged "races" seems to be okay, but that's another issue). It's like saying "where I come from there's no such thing as 'caste', so remove that from the Draft Code". If there's no such thing as race, is it okay for me to call someone a nigger "the n-word"? Pelagic (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
To even use the debunked concept of race is an insult. There are no different human races. There is of course racism, but that's something different, it has nothing to do with real races. So using race is scientifical nonsense and should not be used for an encyclopedia, racists should of course be shown to the door on the other hand. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Unsufficiently referring to offline harassment situations

The section about unacceptable behavior is mostly focusing on harassment on the projects and not providing much guidance with regards to irl harassement. I remember this disgruntled user who happened to attend a conference where I was speaking. He interrupted me and was very aggressive, even though it was obvious (to me) his issue was not with me but with other community members and his wikipedia grand-ma page. He went on, it seemingly went forever as no one dared interrupted him and save me from the embarassement. After that situation, I looked for info about him and discovered he was (openly disclosed publicly) in the autistic spectrum and apologizing for sometime "going too far". So I put the situation on his socially poor behavior that day and forgot about it. Till about a year later, in similar circonstances except I was on a panel that time. He rode the show again, and again no one really dared stop him. I managed to stop him by saying "please talk to me in person, after the panel". But he completely disrupted the event and people came to me afterward, who understood nothing of the issue and asking me what I did wrong that the guy was so mad ("well, nothing, really nothing"). In truth, this is neither cool on the wikipedian being flamed in public situation, nor good with regards to the perception of the project. And it was not finished... Next I knew, a week later, the editor rang at MY door. MY home. Because his family lived nearby and he took the opportunity to come defend his case...
The guy did not insult, nor threatened, nor stalked me on the projects, nor trolled. He was just no more able to control his feelings. I did not appreciate, neither him coming at my home, nor him shaming me in front of hundreds of people and using me as a scapegoat. I guess we all know wikipedians who blew up out of anger and frustration. And many of us experienced those users who show up at irl events to "vent". It is complicated to handle. I would argue that this should be reflected in the code. Right now, most of the "unacceptable behavior" points to online situations (in particular editing) whilst offline can be a real issue as well, or they point to situation where the offender is really acting in bad faith voluntarily, when sometimes it is only due to poor social behavior abilities. Anthere (talk)

"using slurs"

I worry about this clause. I believe a distinction needs to be made for the use–mention distinction. While I understand that this can be abused, it is sometimes necessary or unavoidable, when discussing slurs as a subject of an article, to at times mention them. I would add "using slurs or stereotypes as insults, or mentioning them without care". Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: This is a good point, though it doesn't appear to have been added to the draft yet; but we'd want to make sure that any change in language doesn't allow in "I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir" indirection of slurs. --Struthious Bandersnatch 23:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

repeated behaviour

Harassment is usually defined as a pattern of repeated negative behaviours (bullying, verbal abuse, etc.). If we leave out the repeat aspect, we will end up with a Code that is out of step with expectations within the communities and society more widely. Pelagic (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic: This section already states that "In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression may qualify as insults collectively..." and it appears to have already done so at the point you made the above comment. I am rather skeptical that it's a good idea to elevate repeated sarcasm to the level of harassment in particular, but what you say about the nature of harassment requiring repetition does not seem true to me. Sexual harassment, in particular, can easily exist as a single instance. --Struthious Bandersnatch 02:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(I know this page is finished, but replying here anyway.) @Struthious Bandersnatch: I wasn't talking about repeated mockery constituting an insult, but rather repeated insults or bullying adding up to harassment. If I tell somebody that they are incompetent only once, that's one level; if I pursue them across multiple pages and say the same thing over and over, that's much more sanction-worthy. No doubt you and I won't be the only ones with different views about how these terms should be defined. Then add on the factor that terms like "harassment" have specific legal definitions in some jurisdictions ...
The real test will be when one group wants to indeff or perma-ban a person for a one-off insult or losing their cool, and another group wants to let them off with a warning.
Pelagic (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats

I think this should be included here.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, legal threat for content should be treated differently than legal threat for harassment.   ManosHacker talk 21:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@SRuizR and ManosHacker: This section, §3.1, already contains language prohibiting "intimidation by suggesting gratuitous legal action to win an argument"; it doesn't seem to me that a UCoC should get too much further into discussing legal threats, which outside of gratuitous ones are more like a practical issue at their base rather than an ethical one.
(Though of course any non-gratuitous legal issue may involve ethics as well as law but that significance is on a case-by-case basis rather than something that would interact with a Universal Code of Conduct.) --Struthious Bandersnatch 01:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Struthious Bandersnatch: My bad, I didn't see that part. Kind regards.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 21:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

3.2 - Abuse of power, privilege, or influence

Hello, I wonder who exactly is addressed by this sentence:

"Abuse occurs when someone in a real or perceived position of power, privilege, or influence engages in disrespectful, cruel, and/or violent behavior toward other people."

This means - everybody, because others might perceive e.g. myself to be a person of "power, privilege, or influence"? Ziko (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Eissink (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC).
  • "In Wikimedia environments it [abuse] most frequently takes the form of etc." – this wording expresses the ongoing and continuous abuse as a fact. In other words, as long as the UCoC is valid, it states the presence of abuse as a matter of fact, not of possibility. In a way it invokes the abuse. This can not (should not) be the intention of a UCoC, more careful wording seems wanted ("In Wikimedia environments most likely it might take the form of etc. etc."?). Eissink (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC).
Good point. Pelagic (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't WMF have statistics on this, which would mean that it is a fact? Libcub (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
That is beside the point, which is that the UCoC should not state facts for times to come. We don't how the facts in the future will be, we don't have statistics on them either, and it is certainly to be hoped that there will be times that the abuse is not ongoing and to practically state otherwise in the UCoC is not prudent. Eissink (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC).

As far as I know, there are no global rules that regulate COI for admins, as described by WP:INVOLVED, and some (most?) wikis do not have an equivalent of WP:INVOLVED at all. I've always seen WP:INVOLVED as a basic principle that should always apply, even if it isn't explicitly adopted by the wiki in question. Unfortunately, violation of WP:INVOLVED seems to be a major avenue of abusive and retaliatory behavior in many wikis, and there seems to be a lack of awareness that this is wrong even when such actions could be otherwise deemed reasonable or justified. I wish UCoC specified clearly that using tools where there is conflict of interest is abuse of power. GregorB (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • the INVOLVED policy should not be applicable in small wikis with only one or two active admins. In addition some wikis (such as English Wiktionary) does not honor the policy.--GZWDer (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That's true, but in these cases COI is permissible only because it's impossible to avoid, not because it is sometimes fine. On the other hand, if one assumes e.g. blocks that clearly appear to be retaliatory will naturally (i.e. without explicit grounding in policy) be seen as abusive - which is, I hope, a reasonable assumption - then indeed the current wording is OK (it's impossible to enumerate all kinds of abuses). GregorB (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • It's also worthy of note that even en-wiki, with very strict INVOLVED rules (it's been responsible for quite a few desysops), carves out exceptions for where acting, even when involved, is necessary to mitigate harm. There's so many variants here it seems pointless to include in a UCOC. Nosebagbear (talk)
    • I disagree about small wikis being exempt from this. My understanding that this behavior definitely happens on small wikis. I would suggest either that someone from another language wiki in the same project, from another project in the same language, from WMF, or, possibly, an individual respected in the broader language community should be appointed to participate. If the only justice of the peace in a small town is charged with a felony, I would not want that JP to help adjudicate their own case. Libcub (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Being violent or cruel would be abuse regardless of position. Indeed, I don't know why it's be twinned with it. I've already noted above that while civility should be a given, respect is earned, not given, so phrasing is poor. I'm very reticent to place any phrasing that would allow a newer editor (or one with less advanced permissions) to make a conduct violation and have it viewed as inherently less (not even not at all) problematic. Abuse of status can be an issue "I'm right, purely because I've been here forever", but it shouldn't be changing the very nature of acts made either by or against them. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of seniority and connections

  • The sentence "Using one’s position and reputation to intimidate others" reminds me of the situation newcomers experience when they try to edit an article and an experienced editor does not even want to debate such a change and automatically reverts it. As :@TaronjaSatsuma: explains, in some communities (those without ArbCom), there are no mechanisms to defend the newcomer. They often argue that it is very frustrating to be bitten by an experienced editor, receive a revert and no explanation. The problem here is not whether the edit is accurate or simply wrong, but the lack of explanation (which I think it is collected in 3.3 a), but most importantly, the lack of interest in debating with the newcomer. --Marcmiquel (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There is academic literature on the impact of biting newbies for almost ten years. Therefore, I think it is compulsory to mention more explicitly in 3.1 and 3.2: a) the necessity for editors to be open to debating any change/revert before any further action that involves other editors, b) a special opposition to abusive actions when those suffering them are newcomers or editors belonging to a current minority because their impact can be even larger to the health and diversification of the community. --Marcmiquel (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, ArbCom should be mandatory in big projects. To have Separation of powers.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Big projects usually already have well-developed conflict resolution procvedures, be it ArbCom or not. The problem is with small project, where often the only admin, or the only few admins establish their own rules which can be contrary to everytrhing we can think of. I in fact expect to be small projects to be beneficiaries of UCoC. The big ones are running mostly fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Then why impose the same code of conduct "universally" on all wikipedia projects including the big ones? One size rarely fits all. ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not know. This is not my idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, Spanish and Croatian Wikipedias don't have any conflict resolution procedures, to cite two.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

We ask people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments may carry an unintended implication of creating threats from friends and supporters. - this seems to introduce the concept of unintended abuse, which as far as I understand the term is entirely self-contradictory. This is a wise warning in general, but should not be under "abuse". --Tgr (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Gaslighting

"Working (alone or with a group) to cause someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding." How am I to understand this? I definitely hope that others cause me to doubt my own perceptions, senses, and understanding. This is one reason for my Wikipedia contribution. At the same time, I shall not refrain from causing doubts etc. in others.Mautpreller (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mautpreller:, you know I am the greatest Wikipedian ever. Please don't make me doubt my perception! :-) - I think I understand what is the intention behind this rule, but we see the problems with this wording. Ziko (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I largely agree. There is of course a serious and important point about en:w:Gaslighting, but I'm struggling to suggest a way to phrase it better. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I also support the comments here - I expect my perceptions and understanding to be challenged, frequently, all over Wikipedia. Were someone to say they'd held back on challenging out of concern for how I'd take it, I'd be appalled I was giving off that indication. A UCoC must use the narrowest tailored language to meet its desired goals Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not clear that is is particularly relevant to "power, privilege, or influence" in the context of Wikimedia projects. It's really just a form of harassment. It's not clear why this particular form of harassment needs to be called out by name. It kindof just feels like trivia someone remembered from their intro to psych course, so we figured why not. GMGtalk 16:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with GMG. the section has two very broad categories of actions, followed by one highly specific and not particularly well defined item. Why this specific example and not 50 others? Is it really not covered by the first two? I think this creates more problems than it solves.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • How does this work for a 13-year old kid who turns up and starts editing lots of fan-POV oriented edits to Pokemon, cartoons, video games, you name it, and gets stuck into every conversation on the noticeboards giving a naive and babbly opinion on everything? In every case this happens, "assume good faith" gets stretched to the limit and they end up getting sanctioned "for their own good". Ritchie333 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The code of conduct is a disaster from top to bottom, but the "gaslighting" bit deserves a special award. I've seen a couple of editors rant that they were being gaslighted, and to the best of my recollection every single one was a severe case of IDHT & the alleged victim was warring against basically unanimous opposition. It takes a very special sort of mindset for someone to decide dozens of random strangers somehow all joined a pointless conspiracy to target them personally with bizarre mind games. The notion of gaslighting on a wiki is especially absurd. Everything is logged and citable in diffs, with countless random people passing by who can check the links and diffs. It's strange how the random people who do jump in always seem to jump join up with the gaslighting-conspiracy. Alsee (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    To be honest, even though everything is documented in the diffs, in the case of a prolonged dispute people do not look at them at all, or look at a small selection, not necessarily representative. It is quite uncommon that someone tries to dig out every relevant diff, even in the case of arbitration cases.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
What is said in en:w:Gaslighting is a cruel manipulation practice. But what is said here is very nearly the opposite. It is a common feature of every serious dicussion. This is a general trait of the Ucoc draft: confusing normal ways to argue out differences with severe harmful manipulation practices. This will not help. To be sure, there are editors who see any contradiction to their opinions as cruel attacks to their persons. But we have to distinguish: Is that so or is it not so? The Ucoc draft doesn't even try to do this distinguishing work.Mautpreller (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I am worried about the use of "gaslighting" in the UCoC. While the immediate description seems accurate "Working (alone or with a group) to cause someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding." The following comment indicates gaslighting as a possible common issue in our communities. My concern is this might broaden the meaning of "gaslighting" as a term for other forms of manipulation. Beyond the general risks of overusing the term I fear this will introduce an unnecessary and troubling discussion in concrete cases. Is there any other code of conduct that specifically mentions gaslighting? Chico Venancio (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the word "gaslighting" was taken by someone who is watching US political debates a little too closely. On one hand, anyone arguing a given opinion will believe it to be true, & may unconsciously manipulate the facts to support her/his opinion. On the other hand, there is the issue of intellectual honesty. By this I mean this: if someone quotes a source in support of a fact, that source will have that fact. (The quality of the source is another issue.) Speaking from my own experience, I have been struggling with cleaning up after a former contributor who would make up biographies & support what he wrote by not only citing a book that is not readily common in the US, but not providing which page the author made that assertion. This has led to the articles he wrote being translated to other Wikipedias without verifying the source, & thus the misinformation has spread. We should be able to trust each other not to lie about our sources, & this should be part of any UCoC. (And since this makes so much sense, I suspect it is already covered in some policy somewhere.) -- Llywrch (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Translation without checking the sources in unfortunately (and understandably) too common and might even need to be mentioned separately somewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, that's a little outside the scope of this code. While I completely agree that failure to meet good practices with respect to translation does damage to the project, I think the scope of the code of conduct relates to interactions between individuals.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the text of the Gaslighting bullet point does seem over-broad. en:w:Gaslighting has much clearer wording. Libcub (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@User:Llywrch: I agree that intellectual honesty is an important asset of any user. I also agree that a certain amount of trust is necessary for any productive argument. The problem is that neither intellectual honesty nor trust can be enforced by a body of rules. These are things that must be voluntarily given out of one's free will, otherwise they will lose their very essence.Mautpreller (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mautpreller: intellectual honesty (as I have used the term) is enforced in schools & colleges. How can we not enforce it amongst the projects? Although to be fair, it rarely appears as an isolated offense. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
You mean: don't lie when quoting a source? Outright and conscious lying, especially about sources, is indeed ostracized. I don't think, however, that this is taken lightly in any Wikimedia project. The problem of "intellectual honesty" is usually somewhat more complicated. You bend the sense of the quotation, you use a source against its own sense, you select just what seems to fit into your mission but nothing else, etc. It's usually not outright lying.Mautpreller (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The Gaslighting section seems unnecessary. Unless it's a form of harassment (in which case it belongs in the Harassment section), "gaslighting" as defined in the current draft shouldn't be discouraged. Editors should work both alone and together to cause others to doubt their perceptions and understanding (and, I suppose, "senses"). People who are viewed as reliable shouldn't abuse their reputation, but this phenomenon is already mentioned in the previous subsection ("Abuse of seniority and connections"), and doesn't necessarily involve gaslighting anyway. Ornilnas (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that including this sentence in the UCoC doesn't seem useful. Apart from being very jargony (and a very much politically earmarked jargon, which would unnecessarily detract from the openness towards the UCoC in communities where that particular strand of politics is unpopular), the phenomenon it describes just doesn't happen in an online community. It is something that happens in very tight relationships, such as a marriage, a romantic relationship or a doctor-patient relationship; when used in online discussions, it is entirely troll territory, and given the very vague definition (which basically just comes down to whether someone claims to be the victim of it) it will have little use and a lot of abuse.

The UCoC doesn't currently mention lying; that would be a somewhat better alternative, although in practice still hard to tell apart from someone being wrong but honest. --Tgr (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing inherently negative in causing someone to doubt their own understanding. Especially in content disputes where one frequently encounters points of view one was previously not familiar with, it is an entirely normal thing to happen. That's obviously not what is meant here, but it shows how unhelpful the current definition is. --Tgr (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tgr, I think what you mean by "causing someone to doubt their own understanding" is called challenging one's opinion, which is a beneficial and mutual form of interaction that can lead to a higher level of understanding. Gaslighting on the other hand is specifically employed to destabilize and confuse one's understanding for the benefit of the other party and to keep up this state for a long (infinite) period of time. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 10:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Manipulating content

  • I wonder how "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" comes across to non-Wikipedians, particularly Wikiversity and Wikinews. --Izno (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Problmeatic for Wikispecies, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • In Wikivoyage, we do not have NPOV either, quite the opposite.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
      • While Wikinews or Wikiversity and Wikivoyage don't require 'neutrality', surely neither would welcome users systematically manipulating articles? If someone started pumping out news or travel articles from a strong ethnic nationalist point of view, for instance, surely that would be against their policies or principles? (Also, I confess I don't understand the issue with Wikispecies - @Pigsonthewing: could you expand on that?). Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
        • The taxonomy on Wikispecies - like all biological taxonomy - represents ("favours") a specific interpretation of facts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks Andy. I think I see. Is that taxonomy something that someone could attempt to systematically manipulate, and if they did, would it be a bad thing? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
            • @Chris Keating (The Land), I take it you've never lived in a country with a strong creationist tendency? Taxonomy is absolutely something that people can and do attempt to systematically manipulate, and Wikispecies is expressly based on one particular interpretation. I assume you don't really believe that Wikispecies (or Wikipedia!) should give equal weight to fringe-but-not-absolutely-refuted alternative taxonomies like en:Baraminology (the belief that species fall into different "kinds", and that species from different kinds arose totally independently and have no evolutionary connection), which is what the proposed wording appears to be explicitly mandating.Iridescent (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
              • Well, the current draft looks to me like it's saying you can't systematically manipulate projects to impose that kind of fringe view, but maybe there is some ambiguity in the wording that I haven't spotted? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Sure, but we do not want to formulate UCoC so that we help individlals coming to disrupt projects and pretending they impose neutrality.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Wikispecies is emphatically a Single-Point-of-View project (the opposite of NPoV); and also basically an Original Research project. This means that it is not very compatible with other Wikimedia projects. However, this is how it was set up, this is its purpose; so in itself this does not present abuse or manipulation. - Brya (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Working to cause someone to doubt their understanding

This definition of gaslighting is fundamentally incompatible with more than a few of the components of the second and first of the w:Wikipedia:Five pillars. If this was enacted as a policy, what would happen if an anti-vaxxer accused a public health outcomes editor of trying to cause them to doubt their understanding?

Can this prohibition be re-phrased in objective instead of subjective terms? 107.242.121.53 19:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest to reconsider this definition. "Working (alone or with a group) to cause someone to doubt their own ... understanding" is extremely broad. If you try to convince somebody of another viewpoint, you are also effectively working to cause the other person to doubt their own understanding, aren't you? — Pajz (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree. ”Working to cause someone to doubt [and reconsider, re-evaluate] their understanding”. There’s a word for that. It’s called education. It’s one of the fundamental Movement goals. Pelagic (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Scenario: Editor A says Editor B is incompetent, always making English grammar mistakes. Editor A tells Editor B, "You shouldn't make all those mistakes. They're so much work for other people to fix!"
According to the current phrasing, Editor A is therefore gaslighting Editor B because Editor A is trying to get Editor B to think they're a bad writer. ...But what if Editor B is a bad writer and is making messes for other people to clean up?! In this case, English grammar, Editors A and B can look at a style guide or Purdue Owl and see which one of them is really right (maybe Editor A had crummy high school English teachers and only thinks Editor B is making mistakes), but on more subjective matters, we can't do that. Editorial taste comes to mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of seniority and connections

I don't understand what the second sentence is trying to say. Libcub (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mobbing (moral harassment)

I have added mobbing as it is a special case of personality abuse in adult work environments that is not proven by single incidents. Mobbing is mostly practiced by leading admins and their followers. In severe cases mobbing is spread over time.   ManosHacker talk 10:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition was removed by User:PEarley (WMF) without transferring it to the talk page. I am putting it back here, bolding what need to be kept by all means.

  • Mobbing: While an isolated act cannot be seen as harassment, a series or parallel of such acts target the personality of community member(s) by the abusers. A "wolf pack" is usually consisted of admins and their followers and sometimes extends to WMF staff who encourage or support the harassment of the admins in the communities.

   ManosHacker talk 15:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  • en:WP:TAGTEAM is the closest description of this behavior, practiced to sway a discussion with majority and justify one person's questionable decision. It is one reason why the outcome of disputes on noticeboards depends mostly on the connections and number of supporters of the involved parties, not the policies. It happens regularly, regardless whether the supported behavior is appropriate or not. Due to the political nature of public proceedings, eliminating this effect is not possible, but IMO the importance of evidence over opinion should be emphasized and enforced to somewhat counter this effect. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 12:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
In the fact of Greek Wikipedia, Aron Man., the mobbing has been practiced by a leading admin over a pack of assisting admins and editors. The leader whispers (initially or whenever direction is needed) and the pack attacks. In offline activities, the pack calls the leader for guidance, i.e. for attacks during a conference talk. I wonder if you can tell how it feels to meet in person fellow Wikimedians and especially staff and chairs all over the world and learn rumors about you of being a bad person in Greek Wikipedia, before you are even known. His bad wording and false argumenting has been used by WMF staff. The stake here is not the content but the exersise of power over the community and voluntary activities that promote Wikipedia out of his/their control. He has personally harassed persons directly, more than the usual mobbing he leads, and he is completely covered by the WMF as he practices an illegal wiki activity in Greece. WMF staff has asked me not to communicate the illegal issue to the Greek Community. I have spotted at least two diffs altered in Greek Wikipedia and the online dumps are gone. The fish stinks from the head.   ManosHacker talk 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, WMF have denied to make the harassers publicly apologize and say they will not repeat this behavior again, they are their public image in Greece. So the harassing does not stop and apologies are never heard. Who is the abettor?   ManosHacker talk 06:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I have personally seen mobbing happen, but I wonder how it could be proven. Part of the idea behind Wikis is community consensus. How do we prove that it's one rotten admin and followers harassing someone and not one justified admin and people who agree with them? Just thinking out loud...
  • Normalize non-mobbing ways of getting what you want, like "just ask so-and-so to leave."
  • The burden of proof is on the supposed mobbers. They must cite policy that specifically says they are right and the person they're mobbing is wrong. If there's no written rule against it, you don't get to mob people about it.
  • Explicitly state what people are and are not allowed to do when people make rapid posts on their talk page. You are allowed to delete the posts or you aren't? You're allowed to delete them but only if you transfer them directly to an archive?
  • Give users a way to lock their own talk pages temporarily, without having to as an admin to do it for them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, disturbed personalities and tactics can be easily spotted by specialized people when given the onwiki/offwiki evidence. The problem here is that persons enforcing the strategy of WMF in small communities are completely covered by the WMF, even with documents and agreements the harassed ones have been obliged to sign in order to cover up the harassments and in fact raise the harassment to a higher level. This extends to altering diffs and wiping wiki dumps from the archive pages (internet archive included).   ManosHacker talk 06:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Treatment

In any case of proven unacceptable behavior the abuser(s) have to state publicly that they:

  1. Regret for their behavior to their victim(s) (3.1 and 3.2), or/and in general (3.3).
  2. Commit they will not repeat that behavior.
  3. Agree that if they fail again there will be consequences.

Brought here after being deleted together with "mobbing". So let's the response on this, too. This is the default treatment to harassers without which the victim remains under constant fear and the harassment continues.   ManosHacker talk 16:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Gaslighting - example

This point is an important addition to the CoC. en:Gaslighting is often used to downplay or discredit reports of misconduct from newcomers, thus creating an environment that does not care about the safety of newcomers, contributing to the editor decline. The following example of such ANI report is regarding an editor proven to be logged-out socking[1] in this incident and yet the editor's uncivil comments were downplayed and its conduct was alleged to be appropriate. [2][3] The report was ultimately ignored and archived without remedy. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 12:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Gaslighting - too specific wording

"People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them."
The second part of this sentence is not specifically related to gaslighting in my opinion. Attacks from a status of authority do happen (eg. threats: "be very careful of being disruptive", "very very big problem if you are", "people will start to lose patience"[1]), but those can be direct, unmasked attacks that I wouldn't consider gaslighting. I think "attack others who disagree with them" should be part of the previous point ("Abuse of seniority and connections").

It seems to me this is what confuses some people about the "gaslighting" point. I'd suggest a different wording: "People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to misinterpret, discredit or downplay others with less authority." —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 12:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

3.3 - Content vandalism and abuse of the projects

  • This provision prohibits "Unwarranted, unjustified addition of symbols, images, or content with the intent to intimidate or harm others." How shall WMF determine "intent" in this manner? I imagine if I posted a Nazi flag on my userpage identifying myself as a proud Nazi it would be deleted under the code, but there are other symbols which fall into grey areas. Specifically, I remember coming across a userpage some time ago (I think the user had been blocked or retired, can't remember) and they had posted a custom userbox which displayed the Confederate Battle Flag with a comment about being a proud Southerner. Many Americans now regard that flag as a symbol of white supremacy, while some of its proponents argue its just good ol' regional pride. Would the WMF try and heavily account for context and the poster's own words, or are there some symbols that will basically be outright banned? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • The swastika is a good example to think about. That symbol has a long history before Nazi usage, in multiple cultures, with a variety meanings. Consider the user page for a Navajo, Hindu, or Jain Wikimedian on Meta or Commons (clearly inter-cultural spaces), whose cultures have positive connotations of that symbol. How should we deal with a Jewish and/or gay Wikimedian going to that page, and being traumatized, because their community's association of the symbol with Nazism? Libcub (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Deliberately introducing incorrect or biased content" -- properly defining on a global level which content is truly "incorrect and biased" might be extremely hard, especially given that RS in English and local languages might have, umgh, opposite views on what is incorrect and what is biased due to differences in cultural background. It might be possible to grin and bear uninvited global moderation in discussions, but if it can as well extend to article's content... Oh, well. Adamant.pwn (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding "Repeated removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review or constructive feedback for improvement" - there can be legitimate reasons for this, summarised in the en-wp essay en:WP:DOLT, which cross-references a speech given by Jimmy Wales in 2006 [1]. In short, the scenario I picture here is where the editor removing the content is the subject or related to the subject, believes it to be factually incorrect or distressing, and wants to remove it to avoid such a distress - in such instances, a conduct sanction could potentially cause great harm to the projects. Ritchie333 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Deliberately introducing incorrect or biased content - if we are having something like that, we need a specific inclusion that any determination of "incorrect" or "biased" content is to be done in the current local community method - with conduct only coming after that determination is made. Otherwise we become the "universal code of content" and it becomes a nightmare. Even undesired excursions into this space is problematic, (e.g. enwiki arbcom is currently jumping to try and avoid accidentally making a determination of "psuedoscience" on a contested designation) Nosebagbear (talk)
I think this is a perceptive comment. That sentence implies the "truth," aka an objective measure of whether something is correct or incorrect. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. I'm sure there is at least one example on Wikipedia of someone knowingly insterting "incorrect" content because our policy is verifiability, not an arbitrary definition of correctness. It simply isn't compatible with the basic principle of verifiability, not truth. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Repeated removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review or constructive feedback for improvement". What does this even mean? I remove content all the time. What is appropriate peer review? Do I have to start a discussion every time I remove a bit of vandalism? What about unsourced claims? This is so vague as to be meaningless. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Well quite. If Dave Disruptive writes "In 2005, Joe Schmoe is believed to have bribed three prostitutes to sneak into Sam Senator's house in order to blackmail him" (please note Dave Disruptive, Joe Schome and Sam Senator are all fictional characters chosen for this comment) without any sources, I'm absolutely going to revert that instantly without a peer review (and block them for edit-warring and violating the biography of living persons policy, if necessary). Ritchie333 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Do English Wikipedia's template warnings along the lines of "stop it or you risk getting banned" qualify as “constructive feedback for improvement”? I guess ceasing to do the bad is a kind of improvement. But in practice, not every Undo of a bad edit is accompanied by a uw. Pelagic (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pelagic: My assumption was that it was - that's why I didn't include more on "wildly OTT" in my section, since we'd provide warning templates anyway. They definitely are constructive as they tell you specifically what not to do and why that's the case. Nosebagbear (talk)
  • A bit surprised that blatant/willful copyright violations aren't included (it is in TOS). Same with using multiple accounts to deceive others, which would fall under "Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive" in TOS. --Rschen7754 00:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, since it is already in the TOS, which is already universal, I'm not sure there is a lot of benefit in having it here too. There should be no duplication between the two documents, because any change to one will weaken the other. Every project has quite successfully been able to use the existing TOS when it comes to inappropriate socking. Risker (talk)
      • @Risker: I tend to agree with User:Rschen7754 here. We should have these rules about abusing multiple accounts and willful copyright violations written out clearly in both the TOU and the UCOC, lest anyone would think it is less important or less enforceable because it isn't in the UCOC. Deryck C. 23:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • And then it is also tied with the UCoC enforcement policies. --Rschen7754 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Generally speaking, topics should be in one document or the other. There is no reasonable way to keep both documents in sync, nor to ensure that their terms are treated in an equivalent manner. Further, when we actually *see* copyright violations, most of them are made by new users; educating is better than banning in those cases. If we talk about what some call "close paraphrasing", there's a lot of interpretation involved in assessing that.

            I personally find this document to be far, far too long. Codes of conduct should be short with only the absolutely most important points. They shouldn't duplicate other documents. If we want the UCOC to be followed, it needs to be simple and straightforward; I wouldn't in any way categorize the current draft as either. It absolutely shouldn't be longer; I'd advocate for making it half the length. Risker (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

            • @Risker: Alternatively we should mention in the UCOC introduction that this document is supplementary to the TOU. The current UCOC draft doesn't refer to the TOU at all. Deryck C. 12:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about "biased content" as written. The examples themselves address excessive bias rather than simply bias. There are situations where it is appropriate to introduce biased content. For example, there may be wiki articles describing arguments for and against a particular topic. It is likely that there are some authors who primarily edit in support of one approach and others who primarily edit in support of a different approach. Introducing this "biased" content can help to balance the overall resource. It is excessive bias as described in the examples which should violate a universal code of conduct. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, so... we are all mind-readers now? Or how do we know about "deliberate" and "willful" and "hate speech"? Seb az86556 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Religion cause is going to allow likes of Scientology to cause problems.Geni (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Just content?

Is there a special reason to have the word "content" on the phrase? In my reading this add ambiguity to the code as it allows the interpretation that these actions are only Unacceptable if directly related to the content domains of the projects. Chico Venancio (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A related question: Is this section of the UCoC meant to cover only main namespaces in each project? All namespaces? All but User pages? It seems to me that User pages should be handled a little differently. While I would be wary of sentences such as "Clarence Thomas was right" or "Anita Hill was right" on the en:w:Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination, I think I am okay with those statements on User pages. Libcub (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  • "Repeated removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review or constructive feedback for improvement" I suggest to replace "peer review" with consensus. I often, and sometimes repeatedly remove content without peer review, but never when I think there is no consensus for such a change. Such consensus is often well-established: Removal of vandalism, spam and weasel-words has broad support and does not require a discussion. Nor does it require constructive feedback. Vexations (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Given that the WMF and all its projects stand and fall by the quality of its content, this section is really odd. As noted above already (multiple times), the "Repeated removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review or constructive feedback for improvement" is phrased so as to encourage abuse. Everybody who removes a piece of nonsense can hereby be banned for violating this section. The "or constructive feedback for improvement" sounds like the "slavery clause" once again, in complete denial of the basic fact that contributing to any WMF project is voluntary. And just about any project I know of demands that certain points of view are favoured over others; the "earth is a globe" must be favored over "the earth is flat" in every WMF project. The issue is to set the method by which points of view are favored (the enwiki NPoV-policy does this).
        It is not just what is in this section, but also what is missing. At Wikidata I dealt with a user who was manipulating content so as to artificially improve the ranking of his wiki in the "Articles any Wikipedia should have" ranking; artificially, that is without adding anything like real content. This looked like as blatant a case of abusive manipulation of content to me as there could be. Any action against this on my part was met by this user with accusations of racism, Western supremacism etc, in horrid repetition. Both this manipulation and this hollow rhetoric were accepted at face value as valid by admins (only later this user was globally locked, for a lesser offence). This seems just the sort of thing that a CoC should address, perhaps by something like "Systematically manipulating content to favour objectives other than those set as desirable in the project's policies; it is abuse to manipulate content to promote commercial products, companies, or film stars, artists, athletes, or to influence rankings of any sort, etc." - Brya (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 3.3's current wording is utterly disastrous and should not be implemented under any circumstances.--S Marshall (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I should clarify. The problem is the way it will be construed by truthers and conspiracy theorists. They will understand it as a licence to remove the mainstream academic consensus (because, we will be told, all the mainstream media are "incorrect or biased"); and a licence to prevent us removing their conspiracy theory (because that's "removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review"). The nuanced wording from each project's content inclusion policies, such as WP:V and WP:BLP on en.wiki, was developed over many years in the light of a lot of hard experience, and it is incredibly unwise to replace it with a draft rule that has, with all due respect, clearly been written by someone who's never been in a content dispute on a wiki.
Also, why can't we edit this wiki page? Does the Board dislike the normal wiki process?--S Marshall (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

To "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". First, "systematically" is not helpful because a single contribution, not based on facts or without acceptable supporting literature will already be rated as improper. Therefore, "Repeatedly" might be a better word catching the case of a contributor resistant to learning. Secondly, "manipulating" is here a prejudgment and I suggest e.g. "changing" as a neutral word. Because, thirdly, authors do favour specific interpretations and to have different views is helpful. Conflicts can rise e.g. in denial of facts, other views, or interpretations. Therefore, I suggest "exclusively favour", "extremely favour" or similar. --Manuae (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have significant concerns with "Repeated removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review or constructive feedback for improvement" mainly because it is contradictory. So I can't remove "hate speech in any form of expression", even though it is outlawed by the same document? Do I really have to give someone supporting a Nazi POV constructive feedback for improvement? It's a nice goal, but it practice it just doesn't work. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This section seems like a scope overreach. It implies that the UCoC Committee, or whatever similar enforcing institution we end up with, would take it upon themselves to adjudicate which editor in a content dispute is "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view", or what content is biased, which seems like a catastrophically bad idea - one of the central elements of Wikimedia culture is that such decisions are not made by institutional or hierarchical means (not even local hierarchies, like admins) but community consensus-building. And the people selected for their ability to handle content disputes would likely not be capable to handle the wide range of content issues that would come up.

It is important to recognize that harassing others and similar misconduct can happen via content edits. Vandalism is a form of that, but one that existing policies are entirely capable to manage, so there is not much point in including it here; but an abuser can also get into edit wars and behave unreasonably just to frustrate the target by wasting their time, deface articles the target cares about etc. etc. The UCoC should make it clear that content edits are not automatically exempt from behavioral guidelines. But beyond that, beyond recognizing that harassment, disrespect etc. can happen via content edits, it should stay clear of them. To the extent global policies about content are needed (which might well be zero), the future movement charter and global council will be in a better position to ground them (having more legitimacy, stemming from the movement strategy which the UCoC process has chosen to preempt them). And in general, it is a good idea to address one hard problem at a time. --Tgr (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hate speech clause

Hate speech in any form of expression which intends to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin

  • First, I don't understand why this is in the "Content vandalism and abuse" section rather than the "Harassment" section.
  • But second and more importantly, the broad language of vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against can be easily abused in dispute resolution cases to stifle open discussion of controversial ideas, as many Wikimedians who have tried to deal with repressive governments can testify. I propose changing this to Hate speech in any form of expression which intends to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred dehumanize and incite violence against a group or a class of persons... which is much more specific and enforceable. Deryck C. 23:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
One can make generalized comments of hate speech without targeting a specific person, which is harassment. Say that I make a statement all left-handed people are inferior to right-handed ones -- that is not harassment, but it does incite hatred towards a clearly defined group of people. FWIW, about the only group I would exclude from this clause are groups that advocate hatred: yes, you are allowed to speak disrespectfully about Nazis, racists, other groups that explicitly advocate hatred. (See the en.wikipedia essay Wikipedia:No Nazis.) Although you are not required to. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Llywrch: But the way it is written now, it actually protects the groups that advocate hatred, since the clause applies to them as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

3.4 Undisclosed paid editing

This section is missing, but undisclosed paid editing and advocacy are unacceptable. Editors who engage in this behavior should be banned. Refusal to answer queries about a Conflict of Interest should result in indefinite blocks. Vexations (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This is addressed in the terms of use, and Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies are permitted; therefore, the requirement of disclosure of paid editing is not universal. In particular, it is not required on Commons (which impacts almost every other project) and technical matters related to MediaWiki, which definitely affects every project. Risker (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have long thought (although it seems to be a minority view) that we should really be outlawing undisclosed paid advocacy and spam, not paid editing per-se. For example, if (hypothetically) I told a bunch of people to go and add a neutral and reliable source to every unreferenced BLP on the English Wikipedia, and for every one that stuck, I'd give them £10, but didn't bother mentioning it on-wiki ... well that's undisclosed paid editing isn't it? I'm sure I've been "paid" (in pizza, beer and chips, not money) for fixing people's articles that they couldn't do themselves because the MediaWiki syntax and verification / reliable sources policies are too much of a hill to climb for some people - again that's kind of undisclosed paid editing too. Personally, my ultimate aim for paid advocacy is to turn their autobiographies into biographies, at which point their reliably sourced confirmation of the CEO getting arrested for fraud are all over the internet, making them get the article they deserve >:-D Ritchie333 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well sure, but then you'd have PAID SPAs who fluff up article text for mediocre companies or marginally notable businessmen screaming "I wasn't writing advocacy! I was just adding information!" -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a case for banning the addition of content where the intention is marketing, advertising, public relations and/or advocacy, irrespective of whether it is paid or not. MER-C (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that when we speak of a misuse of Wikimedia projects we should say outright that any kind of paid editing has to be banned. It does not matter whether it is disclosed or not. Also, this should be part of a Code of Conduct, it is not enough to refer to the Terms of Use.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aschmidt:, should we stop accepting code written by anyone whose employer, in support of the project, pays them to help develop the code? That would pretty much eliminate anyone whose company uses the MediaWiki interface, which I'll note is a very large number of third parties. Most of the code base for Wikidata is written by employees of one or more third parties, which is partially (but not completely) supported by WMF grants. Several volunteers in several areas - some in Wiki(p)(m)edian in Residence programs, some paid by third parties who support the Wikimedia philosophy (e.g., Internet Archive) make extremely valuable contributions directly or indirectly. A notable percentage of images on Commons are uploaded by paid professional photographers (often uploading a slightly different version than the image they offer for sale) and by staff of GLAM organizations. These people all qualify as "paid editors" under our terms of use. The majority of them (developers and Commons image uploaders) are already exempted for declaration of being a paid editor/participant because the TOS allows alternate rules for disclosure, including no requirement to disclose at all.

These contributors have created real value to our communities without in any way interfering with the Wikimedia philosophy. They should not be villainized; they are acting in accord with the terms of service, and most of them take these things very seriously. They should not be confused with those individuals who are in fact writing junk contributions for payment. We do need to ensure there are ways for organizations and their employees to request an article or to request changes to out-of-date, incorrect, or biased content; our current processes aren't robust. Risker (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Risker: Thanks for your question. I'd like to put it in more concrete terms. When we speak of paid editors we think of people that are bringing advertising and public relations to Wikipedia. They misuse Wikipedia as a place for "platform relations". Then there came an enumeration which mentioned Wikipedia in line with spam edits on social networks. Their business is disinformation. If we tolerate this, serious volunteers are discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. I do not speak of Wikipedians in Residence or even of students that get grades for writing Wikipedia articles. I myself used to teach Wikipedia at schools and at universities in projects like these, and I think this is absolutely legitimate. And if we draft a code of conduct, I think we need to draw the line between what really brings us ahead and what does damage to Wikipedia that in many cases cannot be undone. Some cases you have mentioned show that it is not about being paid or not for what you are doing, but whether you are doing harm to the project or not. This should be said straight away: We welcome those who make Wikipedia etc. better, even it they are paid by third parties, but we are against those misusing our projects for bringing advertising, public relations etc. here because this harms out credibility and it discourages volunteers from contributing. So, again, thanks, for asking questions and making the case, because this brings us on, Risker! What I want to say is that a debate that does not focus on these problems misses the point and plays into the hands of the wrong people.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

3.x

Much of above falls within principle "Discuss edits not editors". w:en:Argumentum ad hominem shoud be banned as the first rule, consequently harrasment, stalking etc. will be banned too. --91.193.176.200 08:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The header to this section obscures the context. Nevertheless I would suggest that all logical fallacies should be disallowed in argument, while agreeing that ad hominem in its subtler forms is quite prevalent, and often not called out. Possibly because neither side recognises it for what it is. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

3.x.2 - Bad faith and Dishonesty

We're not addressing what is IMO the worst, and most common, problem encountered on Wikipedia: manipulation on talk pages and edit summaries. Editors revert edits and lie that they are not in the sources, they strawman others' arguments, they lie about others' conduct, they gish gallop rather than presenting their real arguments. Perhaps these are all the behaviors covered under en:w:WP:CRUSH. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Application

When a person is sanctioned in accordance with this or any other code of conduct, it should be obligatory to specify what has been found to be unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable. Without this level of clarity, no-one can be sure of whether the CoC has been applied correctly, and speculation will proliferate. It is also difficult to avoid doing something when it is not clear what it is you need to avoid. Anyone who is not capable of providing such explanation or willing to be questioned on their reasons should not be making the judgements. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Treatment

I have added a paragraph for the treatment of the abusive behavior. Keep in mind that the victim remains under constant fear unless there is proper treatment in public view.   ManosHacker talk 11:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments

The whole CoC is nothing more and nothing less than the manifesto of complete distrust, disgust and total rejection of the communities by the WMF. Dictatorships and multinational corporations of oppression may create something like this for themselves in order to keep the subordinates subordinate. Anyone who deals with voluntary, voluntary contributors in this way destroys the relationship. In the fixed idea of forcing everyone to unite under one roof, exactly the opposite will happen. In addition, the door is wide open to abuse. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Just because you have certain emotions about the document does not mean that everyone does. I for one will feel more trust, respect, and commitment to Wikimedia-land with the UCoC in place. I will feel more strongly connected to the community, and likely contribute much more than I have in the past. And I think it quite possible that I will want to collaborate across languages or projects, since I know what the universal behavior standards are.
If you look at en:w:Code of conduct, you will see multiple examples that are not from dictatorships and multinational corporations. Libcub (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere by many others before me, regardless of the merits of a universal code of conduct, the way this is being implemented represents an unprecedented overreach and expansion of power by the WMF, without the support of community consensus. Benjamin (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I was hoping for a movement-wide dispute resolution framework. Any plans for such? I'm generally opposed to enactment of normative rules without a way to determine the extent, if any, of transgressions, and their consequences. 107.242.121.53 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on Universal Code of Conduct/FAQ#Enforcement I believe that's supposed to happen in part 2, after the Board approves this draft. Legoktm (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Overall comment on section 2 (Expected behaviour)

I’ll let others comment on the details of the wording in this as a whole, but I’m fairly concerned about how this section is worded. It’s a set of positive expectations. Positive expectations in a code of conduct quite easily could be read as imposing a duty, and the language is broad enough that literally anyone could be in violation of this section at any time. My gut is that the WMF has no intent of actually enforcing it as such, but if that’s the case, just remove it and add anything that should be an expectation to the forbidden list as a negative thing rather than a positive (ex. Use “No one may call Foo Bar” instead of “There is an expectation that Foo is treated with empathy including with the names they are called.”

If there’s actually an expectation of enforcing section 2, I’d be concerned. Positive expectations are usually enforced arbitrarily and can just be something to point to when you want to kick someone out in many organizations. This is because almost everyone will violate them at some point, so having them gives a lot of power to those enforcing them if a decision is made to enforce as rules rather than have them as a positive vision. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody is perfect. --Rschen7754 20:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
In general I think we should express the behavior we want people to follow in a positive manner (semirelated past discussion). If it just listed "don't do X" that doesn't actually instruct users what they should do. I do agree with you in that mandating people do positive things is potentially problematic, given that we don't really require people to do anything. I hope we can include positive expectations in a guideline or recommendation manner. Legoktm (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Clarification is needed. Are the positive expectations actually required, or are they wishful thinking. If required, everyone who works at the coalface will break them some time, putting them at the mercy of the back seat drivers who know how everyone else should behave, but do not put themselves in the position where they themselves are tested. If they are wishful, some people will simply ignore them. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
They are just best practices. I do not see a reason to not list best practices.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Then it might be best to qualify them as such. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh no no no no, Ymblanter! Even if the final version says "these are only best practices" in big letters, underlined and quotated like on the Group W bench, people will threat them as absolute rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree to an extent with Legoktm and Ymblanter that having a set of positive best practices/principles/ideals isn't a bad thing in itself. The problem I see is with listing them in a code of conduct, which is essentially a disciplinary document. It is very easy to get rid of someone for not living up to ideals and I suspect everyone commenting here, even though we try, has likely fallen short of these ideals at some point in our time on Wikimedia projects. While I'm not a "the WMF is out to get us" type, this is a loophole that I've seen used in real life to kick people out of groups I'm involved with, which is why I'm concerned.

    If you want a set of good things people should strive for, create a separate section called "Values" and have it as a preface to the actual code of conduct. Or list it as a second document. Making values/ideals enforceable as requirements is a problem. Ideally all the thou shalt nots would flow from the values as times where everyone could agree the positive expectations were not being followed. You basically want something that lists what we strive for, while also making clear its the negative things that can get you kicked out. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

    • Agree with this completely. You've said it better than I would have said it. The section needs to be clearly marked (and treated as) goals only. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How a wiki works

Hello, reading the draft code for the first time, I would like to make a general comment. In general I support a code and hope that it will help to approach some long time problems in the movement better.

Please keep in mind the following: Wikipedia allows everybody to edit; on the other hand, we and our readers have expectations about the content - for good reasons. This means that criticising content (contributed by others) is part of the very wiki concept.

The task of the regular Wikipedians is not only to welcome newbies and show solidarity with everybody, a Wikipedia has also the task to filter (new) content, to improve or delete it. That's collaboration. Of course, this can often lead to situations experienced by some as unpleasant. (I am not talking about insults and harassment, but simply about altering someone else's content.)

To give you an example, based on a real story: User A notices that user B has written a new Wikipedia article, based partially on the autobiography of a historically disputed person. A asks B not to make use of this kind of "sources". But B continues, and also creates footnotes in many other articles. So, A goes from article to article to delete those footnotes. On the user talk page, he tells B not to go on but to help with reverting.

Why do I come up with this? Because the behaviour of A has a striking resemblance with "stalking" as described in the draft code:

"Stalking: following a person across the project and repeatedly critiquing their work with the intent to upset or discourage them."

So Wikipedians have two tasks, and it is indeed not always easy to find a good balance between both of them. I hope that it will be possible to improve the draft code in a way that helps us with finding this good balance. Ziko (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC): Which actually was the root of the FRAM case which truggered the creation of UCoC--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that in this context it is entirely reasonable and desirable to try to discourage an editor from making inappropriate edits. The intention should not be to upset them, but that may well be the consequence, and it may be unavoidable, as some people get upset when their efforts are judged unsuitable for the encyclopedia even when it is true. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My few problems

Hello fellow editors! I only have a few concerns/issues with this draft, much less than I had expected, and I may as well word them as answerable concerns for those who wrote this:

  • "It applies to all in-person and virtual events, technical spaces, and all Wikimedia projects and wikis." This is quite vague. Is IRC, OTRS, MediaWiki-facilitated email, etc., considered to be an area in which the UCoC applies? And if so, how is it to be enforced? The definition of "technical spaces" and "in-person and virtual events" is not given, and the list given after it only further confuses the message. Does this apply only to WMF-sanctioned technical spaces, and if so does this override their existing codes of conduct? And what is the line regarding "public and semi public interactions"? The list given is partly composed of places where discussion occurs and partly of topics of discussion; it's garbled, vague, and the practical implementation and intended interpretation is unclear.
  • It is easy to mandate civility, but respect, empathy, and solidarity? We're here to build an encyclopedia, not be therapists for eachother. Mandating the given definitions of empathy and solidarity could honestly put anyone and everyone in violation of this thing. Same goes for respect. I'm not sure of the practical definition of respect used for this; "showing regard for others" in the most literal interpretation could be satisfied with "I recognize you exist." For me, at least, I don't automatically respect people I know nothing about, nor am I willing or able to expend time on anyone and everyone who appears they could use assistance. In every usage of the term "respect" I'm aware of, it's something created over time through interpersonal relations, not mandated by a central authority. One can, however, respect the right or priviledge of others to do something without knowing them personally, such as by conforming to what they wish to be referred to as. That can also be considered part of basic civility, however. I don't believe any more than a section on civility is needed; we cannot force people to do any more than communicate civilly, a term which can be expanded upon and encompasses everything necessary (see WM:URB) and nearly everything in 2 that is feasible can be classified under civility. It would minimize buzzwords, keep it simple, and ensure that this UCoC can actually be enforced, not just looked at.
  • Ehhhh...can we remove the "always" from the bit on AGF? I'd have a lot of work to do changing "Vandalism" and "Long-term abuse" block summaries to "Misunderstanding of existing community consensus" and "Long-term attempts to help the project in ways which others disagree would help the project", lest we imply that they acted in bad faith. (sarcasm but you see the point)
  • With regards to "Mentorship and coaching", is this mandating it, stating it as categorically good, or something else? It seems, to me at least, that this entire document needs some method of designating what is required and what is simply a good activitiy. If all of it is required, well, that's impossible; you can't coerce an editor into mentoring or otherwise expending their labor in the services of other editors, that must be done voluntarily.
  • My question about whether something is required or classified as categorically good applies to the rest of 2.2.
  • For the bit on threats, I do not understand why "reputational harm" was included, or the stated end goal of having an editor "behave the way you want". This could be applied to literally thousands of cases. If I am threatening an editor with a block if they continue to do a certain negative action, I am threatening, among other things, reputational harm in an effort to have them behave the way I (and the community) want.
On the same bit about threats, I am very happy to see NLT finally becoming part of global policy. Please keep that in.
  • For the stalking bit, I again fear that this can be applied to way too many situations where it obviously isn't a problem. If I find an editor writing a completely terrible article, or spam, and go through their contributions to find other instances of it, then nominating all of them for deletion, this could very well fall under the incredibly vague definition of "stalking" given. If the criticism of their work is accurate and in good faith (which it always is, because apparently everything is always good faith now <sarcasm note>), it would be a negative for the project not to address it, regardless of emotional effects to the person who was spamming or writing bad articles. Though the bit about intent does help.
  • The last section could use some clarification. Most projects don't have enough editors for peer review of every removal of content, and very often you find lone editors on small projects going on large cleanup sprees handling tons of problems. And editors should not be obligated to provide assistance replacing bad content which they removed; there is no deadline, for one, and also why would someone do work when they're mandated to more than double it once they start? This is what I assume is meant by "constructive feedback for improvement". Perhaps it could be adjusted to focus on not continuing to remove content when contested by other editors, and that editors should be discussing their issues and coming to a resolution? Though honestly this seems like it should be purely local; if you're going to have this you might as well just port all of enwiki's project-space to meta and make it all global policy.
  • "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" - We do this all the time. We favor neutral points of view, ones suported by appropriate sources, and dsisfavor fringe views, those not supported by appropriate sources. The problems lie in what sources are appropriate; the one stating that [insert atrocity here] never happened, the one stating that it was really much smaller than everyone else says, the one saying it was the largest [type of atrocity] in human history, or any other source. The editors who add these, in many cases, do so out of the belief that the view they are adding is correct, even if to others it clearly is not. That sentence is by no means able to enact what I believe the intention was, of mandating whatever is currently considered the correct view of a historical event. Reword/clarify? Something like this might be better: "Manipulating content to unduly favor fringe interpretations of subjects or events and/or preventing such fringe interpretations from being contested." The definition of "unduly" in this case would be the same as on enwiki's WP:UNDUE, and though I know how much people love the word, "systematically" would prevent issues happening only on one page or with one user from being addressed, as well as requiring that the systematic nature of an issue be proven before it can be addressed.
  • "Unwarranted, unjustified addition..." what's warranted, what's justified?

In a nutshell, my issues with this draft are that it doesn't seem like the practical applications of it were taken into account during writing. Most of it is vague, could apply to everything and nothing, there's no noted separation between what is stated as good and what is required, there's many words which have no acceptable definition (in the context of the UCoC) yet would play an immense role in the interpretation and implementation of it in a given circumstance, and the other issues I've noted above. Thankfully, this is the draft, and everything could be ironed out prior to implementation. Best regards, and happy editing, Vermont (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes vagueness is due to a different focus, and not noticing that what you mean may not be what you say, sometimes it is deliberately included so that it can be interpreted later to serve a specific and possibly unpopular agenda, sometimes it is just due to incompetence, or failure to use clear language, or inaccurate translation of a concept which is clear in one language but not in another. To an outsider it is difficult to know what the causes are. If the vagueness is removed and clarity achieved, it does not really matter what the original causes were. Without sufficient clarity to be actionable in a way that can be understood and agreed by a large majority of users, we just get more wikilawyering and disputes that end in widespresd community dissatisfaction. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Civilty, not empathy. Don't police people's minds and hearts. Rather, don't pretend to be able to police them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The theory and the reality

Being nice to everyone (or else be sanctioned) is a great idea but life is a lot more complex when anyone can edit, including POV-pushers, cranks, right-great-wrongers and other problematic people. At a conference or in a workplace, everyone can be controlled and if someone melts down with a spray of expletives, they can be removed, perhaps temporarily. But at Wikipedia, such removal would usually be exactly the wrong result. By all means, remove those who lose their temper, but only after there is a method to deal with the POV-pushers, cranks, right-great-wrongers and other problematic people. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the job of the W?F? What *isn't* their job?

Here is the original job description for the W?F before they expanded it to include all sorts of new responsibilities:
Original announcement forming the W?F in June 2003:[2],
W?F Mission statement as of February 2006: [3] (Earliest archive at the Wayback machine. Does anyone have a link to something from 2003 or 2004?)
W?F vision as of December 2008: [4] (Earliest archive at the Wayback machine. Does anyone have a link to something from 2003 or 2004?)
W?F bylaws as of November 2004: [5]
Here is the job of the W?F:
  • Keeping the servers running.
  • Stopping that small subset of user behavior that can get the W?F fined or W?F employees arrested (stopping any attempts to use any W?F-controlled webpage for child pornography, pirating, software, publishing credit card numbers, doxing, that sort of thing) even if that community wants to do such a thing
  • Maintaining the software.
  • Doing the accounting and other functions that all US nonprofits are required to do by law.
Here are some optional things that are allowed and/or desirable but not strictly required:
  • Fundraising
  • Awarding grants
  • Creating all manner of non-binding advice to individual W?F projects
  • Stepping in when a W?F project has nobody to perform certain essential functions, then stepping back when the project no longer needs that kind of help
  • Incubating new kinds of W?F wikis and new language versions of existing W?F wikis
  • Having meetings in exotic vacation destinations and paying the favored few to attend
Here are things that are NOT the job of the W?F:
  • Deciding what the content should be for any W?F Wiki that has people and procedures in place to do that without W?F "help"
  • Deciding what the content should be for any W?F Wiki that has people and procedures in place to do that without help
  • Resolving disputes between editors on any W?F Wiki that has people and procedures in place to do that
  • Enforcing rules concerning user behavior (with the limited exceptions mentioned above) for any W?F Wiki that has people and procedures in place to do that
As currently designed, this Universal Code of Conduct is out of scope for the W?F and is yet another attempt to overrule the English Wikipedia (we all know that they aren't targeting the Icelandic Wictionary with this) in the area of user conduct. It isn't the W?F's job to do that.
This could easily become something that is within the range of acceptable W?F behavior: simply make the Code of Conduct purely advisory, provide translations of it, and encourage (but not require) the various W?F projects to adopt and enforce it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Things can change over time, and in fact they do. And reading your fear that the English Wikipedia might be overruled, I cannot but think that it is a very good thing that we will have a UCoC soon. Eissink (talk) 05:04, 8 Septemb'er 2020 (UTC).
  • While I wouldn't advise treating this as if it were coming from a completely external entity (eg, Microsoft or the government of Botswana), the proposed UCoC should not be considered as though there is currently any authority backing it. The WMF does not set regular conduct policy, period. Either it will be adopted by the communities or not; the WMF's say-so is irrelevant. If they would like community feedback, it could be worthwhile to give it to them, as the community-WMF relationship is important (even though their behaviour here has been far from acceptable), but that doesn't go so far as to require that we delegate policy authority to them. I don't expect them to take this nicely, but we'll work through it as best we can. --Yair rand (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    Yair rand their FAQ says the exact opposite. The WMF has declared that there is not going to be any RFC or anything. They may-or-may-not tweak the text based on comments here, then they are going to submit this dumpsterfire to the board for approval. They don't give a crap whether the community accepts it, they intend to impose it by force. Alsee (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Some older links: W?F vision, June 2007, W?F mission statement, December 2005, W?F bylaws, September 2004 * Pppery * it has begun 16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the whole concept of an UCoc is en:Ultra vires for WMF. No one gave them authority to impose such a code nor to enforce it. WMF was created to support the projects, not to rule them. The situation would of course be different, if we could trust WMF with doing "the right thing". Then we could see this draft as an offer to improve collaboration. Unfortunately WMF does little to earn this trust, and a lot to destroy it. And the FAQ, where the board assumes the power to decide independently of the communities can be seen as a declaration of usurpation. --h-stt !? 13:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
That is a good point about this UCoC being outside their competence. However, as Founder Jimmy Wales has claimed to retain control over en:reserve powers over Wikipedia & related projects, so if he thinks something is a good idea (such as a UCoC), he could devolve the duties of creating that onto the Board or Foundation thus allowing it to be done. Or, to put it another way, if the Foundation is truly set on creating & imposing a UCoC on us, it can be done. (We volunteers might respond by abandoning the projects, which would be en:mutually assured destruction, but I'm hoping this won't go there.) -- Llywrch (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It remains a bit unclear why this universal topic cannot wait until it will be handled by a proposed Global Council. A global, diverse body with a clear focus on universal topics (hopefully with good representation by the global community next to affiliates) seems to be much more suitable to me for a decision than the much smaller Board of Trustees which, historically, had its main focus on the WMF organization and just stepped in with global policy making if there was absolute need (and usually asked the global community for feedback, e.g. for re-licensing from GFDL to CC). Wasn't that the idea behind the Global Council? And certainly, an approval by a Global Council would take longer but well, we as meta community members are used to wait for global support. ;) —DerHexer (Talk) 11:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a vast number problems with contents this proposed code (as well as implementation and enforcement). I'd go into them, but hundreds of people already have made the case far better than I could. I would just like to suggest that since WMF seems to have money to waste on trying to micro-manage Wikipedia's editors and admins to such an extent, they clearly have much more money than needed. People should remember that next time the fundraising banners go up. — Carl Henderson (talk)
I think that a CoC is not out of scope for the WMF. The idea that any community can do whatever it likes with "its" WMF project seems to be asking for problems. And indeed, there are plenty of small projects where horrid behaviour occurs regularly. Why hand any bunch of random strangers a valuable franchise? A company like Coca-Cola or Apple does not randomly hand out licenses to people to sell products of their own local manufacture, without regard to quality standards.
        So, some more directives from the WMF is basically a good idea, if the WMF is to take its mission seriously. A CoC is basically a good idea; the problem with this CoC is that it seems focussed on protecting and dealing fairly with minorities, without giving real thought to how grand ideals should be translated into practice. - Brya (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

my 2 cents

I didn't see anything about conflict resolution or de-escalation in the document. What brought this to mind was the section on showing solidarity to fellow Wikimedians and specifically to "speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of our standards". There will be numerous situations where multiple parties are involved in a dispute and no one is behaving well. What is the expected behavior or acceptable or encouraged behavior in such cases?

Where is bullying covered in section 3? It doesn't seem to be either exactly harassment or necessarily abuse of power.

Stalking is a problem, but the definition in the document leaves room for misinterpretation. A few examples for clarification: 1) a user creates a stub about a woman in some scientific field. Another user feels this is part of an organized attempt to get more articles about women into Wikipedia in the name of political correctness, even though they are not notable. That second user marks not only that article for deletion but all of the other recently created articles about women by the first user, with the (marginal) claim that the subjects are not notable. Depending on the facts, this might be (and imo probably is) stalking. 2) A user creates an entry on one of the Wiktionaries that uses a definition from a copyrighted dictionary. A second user checks the content, finds that it is taken verbatim from a copyrighted dictionary, and reverts it with an explanation. That user then checks all of the first user's recent contributions and find that they also use copyrighted material. The second user continues to monitor the contributions of the first user, until it's clear that the first user has understood that no copyrighted material may be used, they leave, or they are blocked for persisting. In this case I think we can't call it stalking, although the intent is clearly to discourage the specific behavior. 3) In the case of a repeat vandal, following their contributions closely and reverting them all would be done with the explicit intent to discourage the person, and yet again this would not be considered stalking. (Note: I have done the last two and been an observer of a case of the first type.)

I'm uncertain about the language about a baseline of acceptable behavior; a baseline would imply that refusal to meet the baseline has consequences. But there is a large neutral area between the acceptable behavior baseline and the unacceptable behavior baseline. What happens to behavior that falls in this area? If nothing happens, we're not really talking about baseline acceptable, but something else. We can encourage certain behavior, perhaps.

This is already too long so I'm stopping here. Good luck! -- ArielGlenn (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally I agree with what stands above. I would point out that there are people who probably believe that their behaviour is correct, but others do not agree. If they are sanctioned without ever understanding why and how their behaviour is unacceptable, they cannot learn and will be lost to the projects. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this a great example, and I've seen all three cases thus described. Ritchie333 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
First case can be solved by asking other users to check disputed contribution. So this forms consensus of many users about contribution and will not fall under stalking definition. --83.220.238.71 09:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Trust & Safety

I strongly object to this page "being monitored by Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust and Safety team." This is the most unsuitable monitoring institution that could have been found. If monitoring is necessary, one should look for unbiased persons. T&S is by definition biased regarding this subject. And what is even more problematic: T&S themselves are in the habit of accusing and judging "perpetrators" in procedures that have been criticized as unfair and uncontrolled. This should definitely exclude them as moderators and "monitorers" of a discussion of this subject.Mautpreller (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The prominent warning is unnecessary and, given some of that team's past actions resulting from sudden power-grabs, the banner could be seen as intimidatory. EddieHugh (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Additionally, it grants them authority to act on every single thing within the UCOC's remit. I refuse to grant them that. They can have the specific zones designated. If they are going to claim outside those remits, then it read "T&S confirms that it will act in all areas of conduct, but that this does not have a community mandate*. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is now over 24 hours since Mautpreller queried the appropriateness of this WMF Trust & Safety monitoring. There has been no response: no attempt to provide a justification for this prominently displayed monitoring, no definition of their role here, just silence. I fully expect those individuals on the Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee to read, consider and respond to points from this discussion age, as that is their role, but am not alone in seeing no good reason why this particular page should be singled out for T&S monitoring, a baleful presence which could inhibit discussion by community members. This surely requires a justification to be provided here? If that cannot be done, then the notice should be removed and T&S can return to their day jobs. AllyD (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe T&S are so busy "monitoring" this discussion that they haven't found this section yet. 2003:C7:EF17:4200:9872:9A3B:E379:E5C7 13:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, @Mautpreller: @Nosebagbear: @EddieHugh: @AllyD:
My apologies for the slowness of my reply. Me and my team prioritized getting 30 language translations on wiki and just now started to review the discussion for comments that need a reply.
I want to clarify the meaning of the text box and will gladly change the wording to make it clearer.
The T&S Policy team is the part of T&S working with the UCoC drafting committee. The Policy team’s work normally does not involve investigating or sanctioning Wikimedia users and we are not planning to do any enforcement on this talk page.
I appreciate the the civility of the discussion on this page and the many substantive comments. I’m sure that the drafting committee does, too. If problems arise in the discussion, the usual enforcement processes on Meta and local projects will be followed.
To further clarify, T&S policy team is actively monitoring the talk page comments in order to collect the comments and give them to the UCoC committee in regular Wednesday meetings. We are doing this for all 30 languages. We also will answer process related questions as they come up.
Later today, I plan to change the textbox to make all of this more clear. This my first take at a redo.
{{mbox|text = Thank you for your comments! *We would like to invite everyone engaging in discussions to observe the general expectations of civil behaviour set by the [[Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities|Terms of Use]] of the Foundation. *The [[Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee|drafting committee]] is meeting regularly on Wednesdays (UTC) to review community feedback and agree changes of the text. Updates will be posted here after the Committee meets. *This page, and its translations, is being followed by Wikimedia Foundation’s [[Trust and Safety]] Policy team who will respond to process related questions.}}
Let me know if these changes make the T&S Policy team's role in following the page more clear. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I switched out the textbox with wording that seems clearer, to me. :-) I'll gladly make more improvements to the text if we get more feedback. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Re "T&S policy team is actively monitoring the talk page comments in order to collect the comments and give them to the UCoC committee in regular Wednesday meetings" Please provide a URL to this page to the UCoC committee so that if any of them are interested they can read the unfiltered comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that it is necessary. I'm pretty sure they are reading here on Meta. But I'll make sure that they have the link. I want to point out that the discussion is also happening in the other languages, too. And all of the these will be collected and shared so that they don't have to read over 30 discussions. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, as long as links to those 30 discussions and any direct translations of them are also provided. What I would not want is for whoever does the collecting and sharing to become a gatekeeper who decides what the UCoC committee hears and doesn't hear. Give the leader of an organization absolute power and authority but also give me control over what the leader hears and I control the organization. (I keep thinking that Jonathan Swift wrote about such a situation, but I can't find it. Does anyone know of such an example in literature?) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This is better. My general reservations regarding T&S remain valid, of course. But it's a step to refrain from moderating this page.Mautpreller (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please be cautious, one member of the Trust and Safety Team has warned me that I should not make a case of the abuse I received or I would find it in front of me in the future, while a second member of that team has asked a harassed person to politely ask the harassing admin not to repeat the harassment. Pathetic, as the specific case was a case study which resulted to a wmf conference publication that had as advisor an admin of the harassing team.   ManosHacker talk 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Something or other from GMG

  • It's a bit redundant to say "all in-person and virtual events, technical spaces, and all Wikimedia projects and wikis" and then try to list what "all" is. "All" means "all". Just keep it simple and allow your words to mean what they mean.
  • When meeting in person - This should be entirely removed. If you are creating a "universal" code of conduct that applies in all spaces, online and in person, then you do not need special mention of meeting in person.
  • The "protected class" lists:
    • intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics
    • race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin
    • You kinda need to pick one here. It implies that the classes where it's not okay to insult someone are meaningfully different from the classes where it's not okay to engage in hate speech. Should probably just add to the preamble or somewhere similar "the following applies to [list of protected classes]".
  • following a person across the project We have more than one of those.
  • "Intent"
    • intent to upset or discourage them
    • intentionally provoke someone
    • unintended implication
    • with the intent to intimidate
    • We should avoid the implication of mind reading, especially in the context of online semi-anonymous text-based communities. Where the rubber meets the road, no one cares about intent. If someone is being harassing then it is not particularly important if they intend to harass. The use of intent itself can easily run counter to AGF, which requires we assume intent already.
  • emotional abuse (verbal, mental, psychological abuse) - We don't need to specify cognitive, mental, emotional, verbal, perceptual...just say emotional or psychological. Pick one. Those are the correct terms and they are essentially interchangeable.
  • (alone or with a group) - Everything here could be construed as applying alone or in a group. There is no need to specify this.
  • People who identify as having a particular physical or mental disability - This is poor choice of language that seems to endorse "trendy self-diagnosis". We do not try to maintain compatibility with screen readers because people "identify as blind"; we do it because people are blind. It is not necessary or helpful that we try to be so inclusive we disparage people who have actual disabilities beyond what they wrote on their twitter bio. This type of relativistic language will only carry you so far until you get into patent meaninglessness.

That's all for now. Please ping in response. I don't follow Meta particularly closely. GMGtalk 12:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

    • Second the portion about self-identifying as handicapped. Just change to People who have a particular physical or mental disability. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree that intention is very difficult to establish with any reasonable level of reliability, so it is pointless to use it as a qualifier. It will be challenged, and will often be wrong. On the other hand most of us would probably not want to persecute a person for the occasional mistake if it is acknowledged and retracted.
    • There is also the problem of people who do not believe that their actions were malicious or harmful. Prosecuting them without reasonably clearly specifying what was done wrongly does not help them to understand the problem. This is often apparent in cases where the offender does not realise that they are being offensive. Persistently mislabeling another person as a member of a group they are not a member of and do not identify with can be quite insulting, particularly when no evidence is available. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Where does it apply?

In the opening section it states that it applies to:

all in-person and virtual events, technical spaces, and all Wikimedia projects and wikis
.
public and semi public interactions

I wish to mirror Vermont's comment above - that this description needs more clarity. This includes fora online which are about Wikimedia things, but not necessarily hosted by WMF infrastructure - such as the popular Telegram channels or facebook groups (assuming the admins of those channels wished it). Or equally, what about in-person events which are operated by a Wikimedia affiliate?

Relatedly, Would separately hosted and independently operating fora be allowed to voluntarily add themselves into the scope of the UCOC? That might include events hosted by a Wikimedia affiliate, or independently operating social media discussion groups? This would mean that those events/fora would gain access to any dispute resolution mechanism and sanctions regime? --Wittylama (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed the question here. Whether it is about who hosts it, and what is the relationship to WM or WP. If I am rude against a Wikipedian on a mailinglist, or a Facebook group about Wikipedia, does that count here? In general, I do think that an attack on a WM mailing list should be considered when sanctioning a Wikipedian on Wikipedia. But, where to draw the line exactly? What if and the other Wikipedian are boy scouts, and we have a quarrel on a boy scout meeting, will we get banned on Wikipedia? Ziko (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It should count if either the WMF, or a project, set it up, or the adjacent organisation self-designates as such. Interestingly, IRC might well count, but Discord would not Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's clear that a Wikimedia Foundation Code of Conduct can't automatically be 'enforced' on a third-party hosted/owned platform or event. But... what if the authority in that place (e.g. the channel admins of a Telegram/Facebook group WANT the code of conduct to apply there. Can they 'opt in'? I'm an admin on the WikipediaWeekly Facebook group - a relatively popular and active, and non-public (requires permission to join, and FB itself is non public). If we wanted, could we ask for the UCOC to encompass that group - thereby tying us into the sanctions and appeals and enforcement methods available to services hosted by the WMF directly? If so, could that potentially mean that if a person behaves absolutely horribly on the Facebook group, logs of their behaviour be escalated to the WMF process, and after the review/appeal process, they could be banned across all Wikimedia projects because of their actions on an independently operated Facebook group? [I think I'd like that - in terms of 'meaningful consequences of your actions'. But, it's obviously very tricky...]. Could a user-group do the same for their meetups?? [I should clarify this is a theoretical question - to test the meaning and scope of the UCOC. The implementation issues (like connecting a username to a facebook account for example) would be a different matter!] Wittylama (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The possibility of opting-in to the UCoC is an important one. The CoC for technical spaces has been adopted in this manner. Chico Venancio (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Codes, guidance, and the role of judgment

In general, I think this is a good start, but putting aside various matters of wording and organization, I think there are two important considerations worth discussing.

First: Consider separating laws from principles and guidance.

When I think of "codes" I think of laws -- things that can and should be enforced. And that's the language used around the UCoC. But then it includes some fuzzy requirements that are much more subjective and present enforceability problems like "Practice empathy". That's not an effective law because it's entirely internal to the person and has no definition based no outward action. By contrast, "Assume good faith," while also a little fuzzy, can more easily be understood through someone's words (i.e. even if they aren't assuming good faith, they can still practice "assume good faith" in interactions with people).

Second: Carve out more space for the role of judgment.

A code of conduct is necessarily vague. It cannot hope to identify every conceivable problem and its application will always be fraught and full of gray areas. That's not a reason not to have one, but it's a reality about its enforcement. There should be some language speaking to the role of judgment in applying them. That is, that as long as a local community implements these rules and as long as there's buy in among its users, and as long as it has good faith administrators, then judgment of how they apply in specific cases is up to that community. I would limit (through either more or less words) the role of the WMF in this policy to actions on projects which do not have rules based on this or do not have community buy in for their particular set of rules or do not have good faith administrators. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"A code of conduct is necessarily vague." No, it isn't. A code of conduct should have some degree of abstraction, but this is not the same as being vague. And a Universal CoC should precisely hope to address every conceivable problem. Further it is not up to communities to decide how the code applies, because it simply applies to all projects, no matter what. Eissink (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC).
Abstract, vague, broad, generalized ... not really looking to split hairs between these.
address every conceivable problem - I said "cannot hope to identify every conceivable problem" as in it can't list every possible type of violation because it cannot be an infinite document. It requires a broad rule that can be applied locally to specific situations.
it is not up to communities to decide how the code applies, because it simply applies to all projects - those don't contradict each other. A UCoC could just say "don't be a jerk", requiring everyone to build their guidelines around "don't be a jerk" -- how that happens, as long as it's built around "don't be a jerk," is up to the communities, as it how it's enforced. The need to recognize this role of judgment was my point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should insist that before a CoC, we need a constitution of the movement. A document that determines the roles, rights and duties of the different contributing entities, including but not limited to the board, WMF staff, chapters, affiliates, user groups (recognized or not), communities as represented by the majority in a RfC, individual editors, individual persons entrusted with special functions, and the like. --h-stt !? 14:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I also had that in mind, to be honest … —DerHexer (Talk) 11:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of a movement 'constitution', something like that is planned in the Movement Strategy recommendations, which work is happening about. My understanding is that the Code of Conduct is coming first because: 1) the WMF views it as more urgent; 2) it is a simpler, shorter piece of work that can be delivered on a timeframe of months not years; 3) because the Code of Conduct is expected to be controversial, so much so that other conversations about movement charters, global councils etc could potentially be derailed if they devolve into conversations about the Code of Conduct. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
These are some reasons which also came to my mind (I honestly try to understand what's going on here or there ;-)), but I do see arguments against each of them, too. ;) Hence, it would be nice if the WMF could shed a light on that. As said elsewhere, there have been times when such changes on a global level had to go through approval (or, more recently, at least endorsement) of the global community within its current processes. For the UCoC it remains unclear (to me at least) why the BoT seems to think that approving a global policy which many users would probably say does not fall into their jurisdiction (“approval”) because it is way more relevant to the global community of contributors than to WMF structures, would be sustainable and accepted by the global community in the long term than a joint adoption. Because of a lack of that joint approval, I see many options how the community might react to a code whose values they do not share, from neglecting to revolting. And I fear that this does not solve the problems we currently have because we don't have any such global policy or could make lifes even worse for those who probably have to deal with enacting this policy (including myself as a steward). Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Good riddance and bad riddance

All the big Wikipedia projects worked out their ways to get rid of malevolent editors and enable the rest to share their knowledge with the world. Any universal tool, implemented without proper understanding of local cultures and languages, is prone to abuse. It can easily happen to work the other way around, blocking the best editors and prompting them to retire while making the vandals flourish. I base this opinion on my prior experiences and on what I read about WMF. Nevertheless, I know that I will not convince you to abandon the idea, so please, at least look at my comments in upper sections in order to make it a little bit less harmful. In case of any questions, do not hesitate to ping me. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Without distinction based on age

"Without distinction based on age" is a good principle within the context of normal employment situations where everyone is a legal adult. We are a volunteer community that has in the past had some surprisingly young people in surprisingly senior positions - there are people in their twenties who have been administrators for half their lifetimes. But we currently set a minimum age of 18 to serve on the arbitration committee (Arbcom) of the English language Wikipedia. I think we also require people to be of legal age to have access to non public data - checkusers and OTRS agents. I'm pretty sure that the WMF and all the chapters it funds will have minimum ages for anyone they employ full time, and in most cases there will be laws that require this. In practice this policy will have to be amended to bring it into line with various minimum age legislation. There is also the issue that if anyone who seems to be under 18 runs for administrator on EN Wikipedia and I suspect some other wikis there will be people who oppose them on grounds of age, though they will probably mask that as "maturity concerns". We could interpret this policy as we will only discriminate on age where the relevant law requires us to, in which case we have an awkward choice re people who oppose an RFA on those grounds, especially if they use a euphemism rather than say "Happy to support in the future if you run again after your 18th birthday". In the opposite direction, I suspect many people are much more open to unblocking a 16 year old who was blocked four years ago for something they now promise not to do than we would be to unblock a 54 year old for something they did at the age of 50...... We could amend this to say we will not discriminate on grounds of age among those who are legal adults. Or we could make some other change, but the current proposal won't work. This may not matter much in the short term - our dependence on the "desktop" platform for the vast majority of our new editors means we have an aging community "The Greying of the pedia" has been a thing for some years. But if the Mobile platform were ever to become "editor friendly" or we were to launch a "tablet" platform to complement our "mobile" and "desktop" platforms, we could expect to get a new generation of teenagers joining the community. I for one would welcome that, but I'm not sure we would want a policy of "Without distinction based on age" if we were back in the era of having lots of 14 year olds active on the site. WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Won't someone think of the Nazis?

Strongly against the idea that one's political ideas should shield them from criticism. Cyberbullying is the correct way to handle Nazis and other repugnant ideologies. 75.129.226.141 22:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Cyberbullying is the correct way to handle Nazis and other repugnant ideologies. reads as one of the more concerning "ends justify the means" set-ups, not to mention provoking a fun argument on who gets to decide what a repugnant ideology is. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There is an obvious clash between not discriminating against people because of their politics, and "Hate speech in any form of expression which intends to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin". Certain types of nationalists, conservatives and religious zealots along with, by definition, all fascists have views that are incompatible with that hate speech clause. In theory you could interpret the code of conduct as allowing people to identify as Nazis, but not allowing them to behave as Nazis. I don't see that working though, better as 75:129 implies to block Nazis at first sight. One of the very few blocks I have done before an account made its first edit was of User SwastikaNazi I'm hoping that this code of conduct doesn't turn that into a "bad block", at the moment it isn't clear whether it does as the code could be interpreted in contradictory ways. Broader than the Nazi issue though, what do you do with someone who identifies with an ideology or religion that has teachings that are incompatible with this code of conduct, but who hasn't yet said anything that counts as hate speech? For example certain religions are deeply homophobic, other religions teach discrimination against atheists or those of certain religious views. Is identifying as a member of one of those religions sufficient grounds for a block, or do you have to wait for them to say, for example "yes I agree with my religion's teachings that apostates should be executed"? The trouble with a code of conduct is that it brings either clarity or obfuscation to many areas where lots of people have heretofore compartmentalised themselves. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
You say "block", but 75.129.226.141 said "cyberbullying". --AVRS (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I'm concerned there is a difference, others may disagree. But to me the important thing in this thread is to highlight the inconsistency in the code of conduct. My hope is that the bits of the code that condemn hate speech override the toleration of all political views elsewhere in the code. But another way of reading the code is that homophobia and racism is OK, providing you have religious or political reasons for it. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were opposed to trolling?--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Toxic

I want to thank the drafting committee for not using the word "toxic" in the draft, and I hope it will not appear there after the discussion stage.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Senility

People's mental abilities change over time. Allegedly even Winston Churchill had to be "retired" as Prime Minster after he had started going senile. A policy of "without distinction based on mental disabilities", if taken literally, would make "yes I'm developing alzheimers" a policy based response to someone clearly showing they no longer have the mental abilities they had when they became an admin. I'm all for not discriminating against, and making allowances for, those of our community who have mental disabilities that don't preclude they're being Wikimedians. But we need to differentiate between people who are different to the mental norm whatever that is, and those whose mental disabilities are reducing their ability to be active competent members of the community. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I share similar concerns here. For example, someone who is dyslexic may sadly have great difficulty contributing to our projects in a positive way. I want to say I can recall a behavioral dispute on enwiki a year or so ago involving some hurled insults and accusations of unrestrained anger. One of the parties to this dispute conceded that they suffered from autism which inhibited their ability to communicate in a manner others would understand as polite and inhibited their ability to understand the full nuances of what others were saying, all culminating in them engaging in some very frustrating discussions. I fully support the WMF stopping discrimination of participation with the likes of "this user has autism so we must block them". However, the code of conduct must allow us the flexibility to encourage (or force) users who are prevented from engaging constructively due to a mental illness to step away from our projects. We are not therapy, and our patience is not infinite. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
We refrain from making a diagnosis on what causes behavior, and act on the actual behaviour. Like we do not (in policy) comment on the person, but on the edits they make.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. But that still leaves us with problems in the code of conduct. Specifically if we are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of someone's mental disability, What do we do when someone who was a trusted member of the community starts to deteriorate in the way people with Alzheimers do? And what do we do, in that circumstance or others, when someone gives the excuse that they have a mental condition or disability? If someone accused of an abrupt undiplomatic communication style and repeatedly pointing out the same errors to another editor is accused of borderline harassment, is it an acceptable response for them to say "I have mental condition ******** and this may lead me to appear undiplomatic, obsessive and even harsh in enforcing policy. But fortunately the code of conduct protects me because you are not allowed to distinguish based on mental disability". Of course we could interpret the code as not allowing discrimination against people with mental disabilities that don't impact their online behaviour, but in that case what change do we achieve by having it in the code? WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a troublesome problem, but what can we do in a community where anonymity is sacred, other than deal with what people actually do. We are not in a position to deduce motives. though some people seem to think they can. I could claim to have a mental illness without actually having it. How would anyone prove otherwise? {OK a specialist in the condition might be able to deduce a diagnosis from on-wiki history, but that is a bit out of scope, and in the long run not really that relevant). All we can reasonably be expected to do is deal with what is in front of us. Competence is required. If a person who has given years of excellent service deteriorates to the extent that their behaviour is no longer tolerable, it should not be tolerated. There may come a time when we must politely thank them for their earlier work and close the door behind them, as gently as possible. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
First, the issue of mental disability should only come up if the individual shares this information, not thru diagnosis. Second, we should only make reasonable accommodations for any such disability. If a would-be contributor suffers from untreated schizophrenia, let's say, there is no way we can accommodate that person; their disability outweighs any possible contribution they might offer. I recall a case from about 15 years ago on en.wikipedia about a person who had been a chronic problem due to mental disability (IIRC, this person struggled with OCD); one of the WMF staff at the time made an effort to try to help the person edit productively, only to discover they had created a sock account in order to indulge their compulsive behavior. (And once that was discovered, this person was banned.) We can only do so much, & most volunteers come to a project to edit or help others edit, not be an unpaid referee or social worker. -- Llywrch (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Wise words. But how do we bring the code of conduct into line with this, especially if the WMF are too busy to read these threads. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We can edit the whole draft, can't we?

The whole notice box was removed, so implicitly, we can make edits on the whole draft, can't we? I made one edit, and I hope it won't be revert (yet). Will it? George Ho (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh - didn't see this earlier. I did revert your edit, because this isn't an on-wiki editing process. The drafting team will review the feedback and then update the document, and probably will not look at the edit history of the page, because they're not expecting to, so editing the draft on-wiki might not have any effect. Also we start to edit the draft then that starts to introduce some problems - the draft and the discussion will no longer match, which can cause confusion - and also English will no longer match the translations, which can also confuse people. Though happy to be told I'm wrong about any of this by people more involved with the project. Thanks, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi George and Chris. Agree that things will get confusing if edits are made by folks other than Committee members. The Commmittee will need to look at comments left on other language versions as well, so it's best that this version stays static until they are ready to make their changes. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Too confusing? If that's the case, then the WMF Committee members must not actually worked on any Wikipedia article. — Carl Henderson (talk)
Why not start a shadow-draft, a new page where editors can edit the draft just as they wish? Might be very interesting. Eissink (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

What would have been the consequences of SuperProtect and FRAMBAN?

SuperProtect and FRAMBAN were severe actions by people within the WMF against the communitiy, actions that needed to be sanctioned. I'm not aware that the villains of this massive attacs against the community were somehow sanctioned or reprimanded. Would such unacceptable behaviour of (WMF)ers be dealt in another way with such a UCoC? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I meant to bring this up - the UCOC is all on how it will cover individual WMF members, but logically should also act on WMF actions that breach the rules (as they would if, say, a whole wikiproject of editors bullied someone). Stating it's a consultation then retracting that status, or lying about what statistics state, are both disrespectful and have occurred recently. This UCOC would have those be sanctionable. Interestingly, it could also be interpreted that the current en-wiki prohibitions on placing conduct sanctions on WMF accounts might also be prohibited by this - we can't opt out of enforcing it, on anyone. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    I do not see how WMF empoyees can be sanctioned. Yes, they can be fired, rejected promotion or rejected the salary raise - but I would strongly oppose giving communities any formal say in these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
So SuperProtect was by every means an evil anti-community aggression by some rogue (WMF)ers, nobody involved in this extreme anti-community scheme should have anything to say in the Wikiverse any more. Jan could go by the "orders followed" excuse, if he would apologise for his aggression, as he was just a hired gun to do the task of implementing the nuclear device, ordered by some higher ups, but anyone of these higher ups should have been blocked indef by OFFICE for the whole Wikiverse for their massive misdeeds. Afaik absolutely nothing happened to those villains. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"Blocking indef" is a notion you can apply to a community member. If editing English Wikipedia is my hobby (or even if this my work, imposed on me by my employer), and I am blocked indef, my hobby is gone. Now, if I am a WMF employee, editing Wikipedia is in principle not a part of my job description. You can block my account indef, it would have absolutely zero effect. I agree that it were nice if they had apologized for the most serious fuckups (and, seriously, superprotect happened more than 10 years ago, and none of the people involved as far as I know is not employed by WMF, and the previous ED kind of apologized - and FRAM is a very different business anyway, but the rebranding may be a candidate), but I do not see what UCoC have any relation to this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia might well be part of their job descriptions. Certainly, if a team's actions are so grossly out of line that were an individual to do them they'd be in clear breach of the UCoC, then they cannot cease being a breach because a team does it - so they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. If that makes their jobs non-viable, then so be it. Universal applicability means universal. Now this doesn't just mean problematic proposals (e.g. IP masking) which have had GF and truthful interaction (as has been the case with both NKohli and Johan), but instances where the Community has been deceived, or equivalent. Now there might be space to discuss whether responsibility accrues to the member of the team who decided that or the one who implemented it (the former might make more sense, given use of role accounts). But if the WMF wants to prevent community autonomy by going for a UCoC, then it has to apply evenly. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that most WMF employees have no interest in editing projects in any way. They may be editing projects if they are told so, and usually on a temporary basis, and those who have any interest of doing so use their volunteer accounts. Blocking the WMF accounts makes absolutely no sense. Firing people would, but, as I said, I will be strongly opposed people being fired based on the community input. Same way as I, being a university professor, do not want to be fired on the basis of the vote of students. Most of my responsibilities do not concern students in any way, and even if they are unhappy with some aspects of my work (probably teaching) it is not up to them to make a decision on my employment.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
No perfect analogies exist. As far as I remember, editors come here voluntarily, wanting to share their knowledge with the world and expecting no gains, completely unlike university students. If most of them consider some WMF employee to be an obstacle to their voluntary work, of course it is no ground for immediate firing, but it really should be properly and thoroughly investigated. Seriously, we (editors) work hard to give everybody access to the free knowledge, while they (WMF) take donations from people who think it is "for development of Wikipedia" and then spend it in order to hire some expensive "rebranding company" or pay people whose work is to block these voluntary workers without right to proper defense. Are you sure that it stands for partnership on equal grounds? Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. The art of being popular is politics. We absolutely do not want WMF employees to be wikipoliticians, and we do not want their salary to depend on whether they are liked in the community or not. Because if the salary starts depending on this we open the whole can of worms. Why I, as a WMF employee, should do something for Hungarian Wikipedia or for English Wikiquote, for example, if I can do something for the German Wikipedia and get more people like me? Why shoulnd't I support one of the parties in a content dispute if I know it will get me more points and may be increase my salary? We absolutely do not want any of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
What do you disagree with? Attacking a strawman you are. I never suggested WMF employees to have salaries dependent on community voting. I suggested that editors' complaints should be treated very seriously, because — in the end — it is them who develop the project. Many meritorious editors got discouraged from the project because of WMF reckless actions. A few more Framgates and we will have half the project veterans left. A few more W?F affairs and no more sponsors will see a reason to donate money to us anymore. Do you disagree with that? Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: You bring up the same old antidemocratic sentiment that has been brought forward ever since the French revolution. "How do simple people dare to decide on who gouverns the state?!" Seriously, the WMF and by extension its employees are supposed to serve the communities build freely available bodies of knowledge, i.e. encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. If their actions are to the detriment of this purpose then there must be a process to stop them. If this means, they cannot do their job then so be it. I would happily put the responsibility in the hands of the head of the WMF if they had not messed up this kind of situations more than once in the past. Do I really have to remind everyone about the egregious circumstances of Fram's ban by WMFs own T&S department last year? Being paid by the WMF cannot be a free pass to harm the project.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding "Blocking indef" is a notion you can apply to a community member: Of course they should be stripped of each and every staffers right in the Wikiverse. Blocked on MediaWiki, on Phabricator etc. Yes, some HR-employee could perhaps still work that way, but devs not. And why should the community, i.e. the highest entity in the Wikiverse, deal with such anti-community personal? Being pro-community should be a job requirement. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, I think this is out of the question. It's not a matter of right or wrong; who seriously believes WMF is going to allow us to hold them to their rules? I imagine they'd handle an violations of a UCoC by their own employees internally. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Are wikis even notified?

When such discussions happen then there usually is a notice sent out using the MassMessage feature. Haven't seen it this time. If it wasn't for my notice then Polish Wikipedia users wouldn't know about this draft. On some other wikis, like nl.wikipedia or ja.wikipedia, there is not even a link to this page. tufor (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tufor, yes, we are in the process of notifying all wikis. Some notifications are being done with translated messages and other will be massmessages. We are doing the translated messages first. Thank you, for notifying Polish Wikipedia. It is going to take at least the rest of the week for us to get all of the invitations sent out and to make sure all of the links work correctly. By the way, we are monitoring the local language discussions, too. All of the discussions will be collected and shared with the drafting committee. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
SPoore, well, good to hear that, though it is perhaps not ideal to set a (pretty tight) 30-day deadline for comments on such a controversial document and then take another 7 days out of those 30 to notify the relevant stakeholders of the discussion ... Just my two pennies' worth. — Pajz (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Pajz, I hear you. Nobody wants to be notified last. But it is impossible to get all the notifications done at once when we are posting translated versions of the invitation. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If you "hear" Paz, you will start the 30 days when the last Wiki is notified. If you are not willing to do that, saying "I hear you" rings false. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(...Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, you made your comment as a statement. It is easy to avoid responding to a statement. It is less easy to justify failing to answer a direct question addressed to a specific person. However you then run a greater risk of being accused of harassment if you remind people that they have not responded.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Please do not accuse other editors of harassment without evidence to back up your assertions. Misinterpreting my comment above as anything other than a clear request to not start the process until 30 days after the last wiki is notified is pedantry and wikilawyering.
IT IS WRONG TO SET A 30-DAY DEADLINE ON COMMENTS WITHOUT NOTIFYING ALL AFFECTED WIKIS FIRST. Please consider this to be a formal request to the W?F to give all relevant stakeholders thirty days to respond. Please consider this to be a formal request to the W?F to respond to this comment, indicating that they either agree to or refuse to give everyone involved 30 days to comment. Please consider this to be a formal request to the W?F to post a notice on this page when the last translation is completed and the last wiki is notified in their own language. Pbsouthwood, if anything I have written in this comment is unclear to you, please ask for clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@SPoore: Why not prepare the notifications ahead of time? It’s not like the actual Draft where you’re waiting on content to be created before you can translate it.
I'm forming a mental image of standard Gantt and PERT charts that have arrows showing task dependencies. What project-management methodologies have been employed here to schedule tasks and assign resources? — Pelagic (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pelagic:, Sydney worked quite hard to project manage the translation component, and indeed prepared messages, dependencies tables and such were employed. However, in working with a large number of translators (some staff, some volunteer, and some professional translators) and trying to coordinate translated versions of the draft with invitations, some delays came up. I hope we can be patient with a small, hard-working team trying to serve as many communities as we can :) Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Good to know that an effort was made to look at dependencies and bring forward tasks where possible, Patrick. I didn’t intend to single out Sydney personally; it sounds like the time-frame has been challenging all-round. I was thinking that the two-week drafting extension might have bought some breathing space for other tasks, but on reflection if incremental updates were being sent to the translators, that could have multiplied the work and not relieved time pressure? Pelagic (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
"When I read a comment like "it sounds like the time-frame has been challenging all-round", I have to ask why this is so. For example, I recently designed a new electronics toy. The deadline was "it has to be in the stores soon enough so that people can buy it as a Christmas present". Unless someone figures out a way to delay Christmas, that's a hard deadline. Contrast this with arbitrary deadlines such as "it has to be done before date X for no particular reason except that we say so." Implementing a Universal Code of Conduct is an example of a project with an arbitrary deadline. If the arbitrary deadline conflicts with treating the smaller projects with respect by giving them the same 30 days to comment that we are giving the English wikipedia, then the arbitrarily deadline needs to be extended. Also, next time please give yourself sufficient time for translations. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@SPoore (WMF): I've notified the folks at the wiki.pt Telegram group about the discussion taking place here, as well as about the Portuguese version that you and Isabelle Belato have been translating. I'll be waiting for the official notification at our Village Pump. I agree with Pajz, though, the proposed schedule seems very tight for the kind of discussion that is needed here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Although I'd like to have helped, all credits for the translation go to Spoore, all I did was fix some inconsistencies that were bothering me. Thanks for giving a heads up to the editors from ptwiki, though, Darwin. Isabelle 🔔 01:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, DarwIn for notifying your community's Telegram group. We sent out another batch of translated invitations today that include a group of pt language wikis. Feel free to redirect it to other locations if you think that it will get more visibility there. So, far there are no comments on the pt-br translation talk page. Maybe over the weekend when people have more free time, we'll see more comments. And thank you, Isabelle Belato for helping to clean up any inconsistencies. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that the feedback clock should not start until all translations are completed. To me, not doing so violates the Respect, Good citizenship, and the Abuse of power, privilege, or influence sections of the proposed UCoC. Libcub (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(...Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

HERE

What is central and is missing from the CoC, I think, if the reason this project exists. We are here to spread culture and educational material (to make it simple). This can be found in WP:HERE, and in similar guidelines in several projects. Without this in mind, this CoC can be the one of a social network.

But we are not a social network and – even if there are many social aspects in contributing to WMF projects – we are focused on a different mission than chatting and discussing or fighting. We have a purpose, and any user that is not focused on this objective is not welcome. I've found it between the lines, but not really explicit in the draft.

Of course, working together to improve the contents of the projects requires assuming good faith, being well-mannered, and respecting the common guidelines. But the perspective of building collaboratively an educational project, focused on knowledge and culture, should define the CoC. With that in mind, it can be easier to focus on what is really important to have a collaborative environment, and to clearly identify disruptive behaviours in this context. --Ruthven (msg) 21:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Conduct while editing is missing

Did you mean to leave out conduct while editing? Over 95% of the interactions editors have with each other take place in the context of editing. Other online sites allow people to talk about what they know and provide their own interpretations. While Wikipedia is explicit about being an encyclopedia, people no longer have contact with printed encyclopedias. No schooling that I know of currently makes clear the difference between an encyclopedia article and a student's essay or report. So editors' initial interactions with Wikipedia are often painful for them. Our task is to get editors beyond that step and allow them to become comfortable as contributers. Any universal code of conduct needs to make clear the conduct expected of editors as they edit, among which are:

  • Make sure your additions meet the policies and guidelines for the project.
  • When asked to explain your work join the discussion.
  • When asked to stop doing something, stop doing it and discuss.

See more at en:Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/All. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The code isn't just for Wikipedia. The code is also meant to cover WikiNews, Wikimedia Commons, WikiVoyage and many other projects. WikiVoyage and WikiNews in particular have very different rules about sourcing and interpretation than Wikipedia does. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh. Where did you find the 95% statistic? I would be interested in seeing other related statistics. Libcub (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, The introductory paragraph may be a bit Wikipedia focused, but those three bulleted points look applicable to any of the projects.
StarryGrandma, I would also be interested to know the source for the 95% claim. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the three bullet points are good, but much of the rest needs broadening from Wikipedia to serve as a code of conduct. As for the 95% statistic, it may be true, but our systems are designed so that escalation goes into talkspace or userspace or elsewhere - deletion discussions are usually in project space rather than mainspace. However it wouldn't surprise me if 95% of disputes start or are connected to mainspace, so if you want to prevent disputes in the first place then looking at mainspace is a good place to start. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

In the weeds?

Wikipedia has developed plenty of useful guidelines and community principles; these have generally arisen organically and serve as a sort of sensible "common law" that is descriptive of what the community wants the projects to be, rather than prescibed from some place on high.

I fear that creating a code of conduct doesn't serve to change values, which is ultimately what causes the day-to-day and moment-to-moment decisions to go the way they do. Instead, this feels like an opportunity for a sort of vexatious litigation to slip into the discussion, wherein individual users argue over the interpretation of text, rather than the spirit of the community goals.

In fact, this whole thing feels a bit like its treading on WP:SHED territory.

SpurriousCorrelation (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It will seem less like discussing bicycle shed when they start enforcing it with an iron fist. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with GM on this one. In my experience, whether it's a behavioral rule or a line in a style guide, even if it says "this is just a suggestion/best practices," it ends up being enforced like gospel. Any rule or code of conduct needs to be 1) specific rather than subjective or vague, 2) limited to actual rules that the community wants enforced, and 3) limited to things that are possible to enforce. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflict

As in all previous discussions about a Ucoc, the term "conflict" is totally missing. But conflict is a necessary and inevitable part of collaboration. Conflicts (e.g. as to Wikipedia articles) have to be argued out, best in a way that is described by a classic quotation: Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo, meaning "vigorous in causes, gentle in manner". This is a reasonable guideline but it will not always work since we are humans in the first place. A code will not change that. There are simply unresolvable quarrels and conflicts (e.g. ethno-conflicts) that won't disappear. The problem is how to manage them, how to deal with them. Where are red lines that should not be transgressed, how is it possible to live with conflict in a sustainable way, which procedures can help to avoid extreme escalation? These are relevant questions but the Ucoc does literally nothing to help there, even avoiding the term or matter of conflict. Rather, it paints a picture of nice, friendly, respectful and harmless behaviour that no human can comply with, and a counter-picture of bad, evil, and harmful behaviour mixing up normal ways to argue in a conflict and extreme, criminal, manipulative actions. This is the wrong way and it will only contribute to haphazard punishment actions, meaning more rather than less escalation.Mautpreller (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

To put it more simply: The danger is that the Ucoc will be a new weapon to win a fight, rather than a means to deal with a fight.Mautpreller (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The reason I've been involved in this process has been out of concern that any UCoC will be used as a weapon in ongoing conflicts. And I assume I am not alone in this. But I will admit that one step towards preventing the weaponization of this UCoC is that it begins with a statement of intent for these rules, which provides a means to keep the letter of these rules from killing its spirit. -- Llywrch (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I certainly hope that the UCoC does become a tool to deal with problematic behavior. Why do you view that as a weapon? Libcub (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
About a year ago, the WMF or more precisely, its trust and safety section used the terms of use (ToU) as a weapon against an admin of the english wikipedia. This editor happened to be an outspoken critic of the foundation. See en-WP:FRAMBAN for the details. ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite familiar with that situation. Although I agree that the way it was handled was problematic, I do not see enforcement of the ToU as weaponization. Consider a parent telling their child that if they get their homework done by 7p that then can have an extra hour of screen-time before bed. If the child does not finish their homework by 7p, I don't view the parent enforcing their rule as weaponizing it. (Which of course is a separate issue from whether that rule was fair.) If a citizen of a town is an outspoken critic of its traffic department, shouldn't the traffic department still be able to give that person parking tickets? I don't think criticizing something should give you immunity from it. Libcub (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
While there is some worry about employees of the Foundation abusing any formulation of the UCoC, the larger concern is how one contributor will use it against another. Let's not fool ourselves: there are people out there who want our content to reflect only their preferred POV, & not all of them are so clumsy as to edit war over one particular version of an article. Some prefer to exploit the rules to be, as one Wikipedian put it many years ago, "civil POV-pushers", using all sorts of tricks to lure those who disagree with them to lose their tempers, break a rule, & thus be sanctioned. Unless you've witnessed a few of these, it is easy to miss the signs of when this is happening. And unless you are either in control of your emotions or a third party, it can be difficult to handle one of these situations. (I had to deal with one of these incidents a few months back, & only because it was such an obvious case of sealioning was I able to step in & stop it. A poorly written UCoC would not allow for a successful handling of a situation like that, & I might have been sanctioned for stopping it.) -- Llywrch (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. That is the problem I see. There are already a lot of weapons in "low intensity warfare", let's face it. Almost every rule can also be (ab)used in such campaigns and has already been. But I fear that the Ucoc will prove as a particularly mighty weapon, especially for two reasons: it is intended as an absolute minimum requirement and this comes close to a nuclear weapon (if you are accused of violating "absolute minimum standards" you will be hardly treated as a human subject), and to all appearances and experiences it will be enforced by an intransparent "office" (presumably T&S) that leaves no room for defence.Mautpreller (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Your second sentence is false. I have had many interactions where other people and I had different ideas, without ever getting close to conflict. Many of those experiences were quite exciting, fun, and fruitful. And conflicts do not "have to be argued out". I have been involved in disagreements in collaborative spaces where simply talking collegially about the issues, looking at different sources, etc., have been perfectly resolved with no arguing. That has been true within my family, in educational settings, in workplaces, in the Wikimedia-sphere, etc. I'm sorry that your experience has been different. It certainly isn't fun for all differing opinions to turn into conflicts, and all conflicts turn into arguments.
A code indeed could change community behavior. For instance, banning the poorest-behaving contributors could result in stronger editor retention, as the editing environment becomes more collegial. Libcub (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I fervently disagree. Conflict is a necessary and inevitable part of collaboration, and rightly so. If you try to exclude conflict from collaboration, you won't do anything good to anyone (and particularly not to the project as a whole).Mautpreller (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia was originally founded on the Libertarian ideal that a marketplace of competition will always produce the best outcome; thus conflict is inevitable. (And intellectual discussion is a form of competition, with the goal of arriving at the truth -- which I believe is also the goal of every project.) Competition works to produce the best outcome enough times to convince some that it is always the correct approach. Nonetheless, the goal is, & always has been to allow competition & collaboration while minimizing conflict. To completely suppress it for any reason, regardless how laudable, is to completely change how the projects work. -- Llywrch (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this is true, but I don't share this "libertarian ideal". I never wanted to be a part of a community of faith when I began to participate in Wikipedia. I was, on the contrary, attracted by the "weak ties" of the project, by its very openness, and I didn't care about libertarian idealists (as Ayn Rand) although I knew that the founder is said to be attached to them. It's this openness I try to defend here (15 years later).Mautpreller (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing in defense of any one ideology, & I did not mean to mislead anyone. I mentioned Libertarianism only to explain why conflict & competition are at the core of Wikipedia & the other projects which grew out from it; conflict & competition wasn't something that came around later like Categories or a UCoC. This supports your point: conflict is not only an unavoidable element of our creative process, it is an essential one, & cannot be removed without destroying a given project. (And if one wants to remove it entirely from a collaborative process, the only viable solution is to leave our projects & start a different one.) -- Llywrch (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Fine. So we agree here. I'd like to see conflict named and acknowledged as an essential part of Wikimedia projects in documents. The question is then how to "do conflict", and there are definitely better and worse ways to argue and behave in a conflict which could be explored and written down. However, I still don't think that an Ucoc is the right kind of document. One suggestion within the strategy process was a charter, which seems not a bad idea after all. But in a charter I'd expect the concept of rights. Rules are certainly important but as a participant in a quasi-monopolistic project, you should definitely have fundamental rights. Looking at catalogues of fundamental rights, they may lead to contradictions, too. Safety and freedom are not automatically reconciled, but both are very important. Here, I think, we need work to be done: how could both fundamental values be valid on a reasonable level? Mautpreller (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Only intermediate level of English?

This UCoC won't be translated in every language, which means that there will be many people with only an intermediate or even low level of English who will have to read the English version.

This applies to all contributors and participants [...], without distinction based on age, [...] language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identities, or career field.

Just some examples of words that someone with only an intermediate level of English probably won't know:

  • distort
  • contradiction
  • imposed
  • endorsement
  • engage
  • strive
  • verifiability
  • citizenship (the normal meaning is "inhabitant of a country / member of a state", but this doesn't make sense in this context.)
  • Respect is showing regard for others Someone who doesn't know "respect", will not know what "regards" are.
  • Civility

--Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 12:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I realise it doesn't help for the discussion process, and that alone is sufficient issue to bring this up, but I'd assumed that the WMF could spring for a one-off translation to the 300 languages once an actual UCOC was concluded. Nosebagbear (talk)
  • Some of these should be changed, others possibly could be changed, but some are going to be immensely tough to rephrase and keep the meaning involved. The meaning of "respect" is being disputed just amongst the English speakers, and civility could be tricky too - "politeness" is somewhat different. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    One does not need to translate to 300 languages, something like 30-40 will cover pretty much everybody. For example, every Chuvash speaker also speaks Russian. Every Sardinian speaker speaks Italian, and so on.-Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)-
  • I admit this is difficult: The words and expressions used here and the translation. A complex original, English Version, will lead to more misstranslations and missinterpretations. We really dont't want this with something that universal. Just imagine, someone from Sardinia has to read a bad translation into Italian, and thinks some behavior would be OK, but isn't in the Englisch Version. What then? I have quite some experience in changing and creating rules and guidelines in de-wikipedia. It's in general better to use more simple words than to put much into few words. You should rather use a whole sentence and describe what you really whant so say, then to use one single word and later discover it has severel other meanings or possible interpretations than you expected. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 22:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
You concern is understandable. The foundation has actually planned to hire professional translators to translate the UCoC to several languages (not all), however a translation hub and a glossary and support pages will be available to help volunteer translators as much as possible. Mehran (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that Der-Wir-Ing makes an excellent point. A difficult wording is excluding readers, among them many non native speakers. The goal should be to use a simple word where possible, a simple sentence structure where possible. Having that said, the original text is already quite good in some parts, but problematic in others. Ziko (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

One option I hope the committee considers in the enforcement section is to approach small-language contributors who may be in violation of the UCoC with more than usual (almost) assume good faith. Libcub (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that it is important to ensure that everyone has an easy possibility to read and understand the text. Additionally, to non-english speakers this also affects other groups of people, like for example functional illiterate people. Therefore:
  • It should be written in easy to understand plain English.
  • Additionally, there should be professional translation into all large, world languages, and
  • Additionally, there should be a version in Basic English and,
  • Additionally, there should be audio recordings in the biggest languages.
Only the combination of all of these makes it likely enough that every one in our international communities, as well as people who are not yet part of them, can properly read and understand them. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Another consideration is to look for words in other languages that we agree have similar meanings to the English ones. A classic example comes from the computer world where the English word "free" is ambiguous, forcing people who talk about "free software" to define "free" as "free as in speech" (or libre, frei) not as "free as in beer" (or kostlos). I see an example on this page where you, MichaelSchoenitzer use the phrase "listen & be open": relying on my poor German, I might translate that as hör auf und öffnen sei, but this probably would be misleading because (1) it is in the imperative mood & could come across as a demand, not as a suggestion; & (2) "be open" might be better translated by aufgeschlossen than sein öffnen. (I read German much better than I can express myself in it.) We can devote hundreds of hours to finding the correct word in English, only to find all our work nullified by a bad translation into Vietnamese or Arabic! (Although I admit there are some languages we volunteers have little ability to influence, such as Amharic & Kannada.) -- Llywrch (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems, we already have a situation were knowledge of the English Language is necessary: On Top of the draft is a Box ("The Committee asks that you do not edit its content directly.") But it isn't translated in many versions. Just check out Russian, Spanisch, Arabic, Italian. But in other languages it is translated (Chinese, German and French for example) --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 09:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment on edit, not editor

Some of the best advice I've heard (not limited to Wikipedia) is to comment on the content, not the person expressing the content. In the context of Wikipedia we often urge editors to comment on edits not the editor. I don't see that sentiment expressed in this code of conduct which seems like it could be a useful addition.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this dogma. There are users who exhibit a constant negative behaviour in many articles and discussions, e.g. deleting certain information because they don't like them, or insulting a particular user. Why shouldn't one comment on the global user's behaviour, in order to propose, for example, a thematic ban? How about positive comments on editors? But the one's positive may be another's negative. After all, most of us are just user-names, and any comments do not target physical persons. Of course comments should not be insulting or harassing a user.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You count also negative edit behaviour: "deleting certain information", "insulting a particular user" are all criticism of their edits. Yet, if you criticize something other of them, their outlook or their non-edit behaviour, then you shouldn't.
A global ban should be discussed referring to the edits of the user, not of the user itself.
If you are only a anonymous user-name, it would be ok. Yet, there exist many Wikipedia events to which Wikipedia users are going and knowing each other personally. Thus, don't think that the persons are anonymous and nobody knows them, just because you're anonymous and nobody knows you.
For anonymous people like you: All critics on you might be critics on your edits. Yet, for non-anonymous user, there might exist many critics which are not based on their edits. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a tough one, because this is basically 'good advice' to avoid personal 'bad behavior', but doesn't necessarily fall within the current draft's setup of what is 'good behavior' vs 'bad behavior'. And next to that, as Skylax30 point out, this can also result in whitewashing of bad behavior (I think that was your point Skylax30?). Maybe link out to a document on "how to be a 'good citizen'" where it can be mentioned or perhaps mention it in that list of 2.2 Civility ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I catch your point, that I'm describing "good" behavior as distinct from acceptable behavior, but this fits in with a theme that I've seen echoed by many contributors to this page. What is the goal of this code when it talks about acceptable versus not acceptable behavior? Is an attempt to identify the red line by pointing out examples of things that are just above but near the line? That doesn't seem to be the case. Some of the examples of acceptable behavior are merely acceptable, but others are more aspirational. If the goal of the acceptable behavior discussion is to outline minimum standards, then we have to rethink the inclusion of "thanks". I think giving thanks to people who deserve thanks is very laudable but we aren't about to sanction editors who failed to do that. I think the discussion of acceptable behavior includes a range of behavior some of which might qualify as a minimum standard and other examples being more in the nature of best practices. Part of the point of the code is to identify situations in which sanctions are applicable. Clearly, engaging in unacceptable behavior qualifies, but what's the point of a discussion of acceptable behavior? Implicitly, failure to live up to the standards espoused in acceptable behavior would be sanctionable. I don't think that's the intention, but what's the point of the discussion of acceptable behavior? I think the problem could be solved by discussing acceptable behavior in the context of best practices and minimum standards, making it clear that failure to meet best practices is not sanctionable that failure to meet minimum standards is sanctionable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
How do you whitewahs bad behaviour? If someone is ugly, there is no need to say it him at Wikipedia. If someone is scratching his ass everytime, you can say it him personally, but not at Wikipedia. The same with nose-picking: Yes, that's bad behaviour, but say it to him privately and not at Wikipedia.
If someone make regular bad edits (e.g. deleting certain information, insulting a particular user) you can and shall mention this bad edits. But you shall not mix their bad edits with their bad behaviour (e.g. ass-scratching, nose-picking). --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
This excellent advice is one of the most common in de-wiki. Especially in polarizing discussions between editors who write lots of articles but get angry in some discussion. They will say arguments like you only propose this because you're paid for - ...because you hate men / women / etc. The advice, not to comment on editors (to make their argument invalid) is somehow included in Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. I think it's worth mentioning this in the section about "good behavior", but as this little section here shows, it chan be difficult to precisly discribe what is meant. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory vs. encouraged

The document needs to distinguish what is mandatory from what is merely encouraged. For example, it is presumably mandatory not to harass someone, or not to make ethnic insults. But surely it cannot be mandatory to mentor people, or always to be empathetic! - Jmabel (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Puppies are cute"

Over half of this says something like "puppies are cute" -- stuff the whole world agrees on before we get into the details. Does anyone who shows up here really think that incivility, disrespect, negativity, harassment, and threats are good things? But none of it is sufficiently defined in this Code of Conduct. The whole thing simply is a document that can be interpreted at a whim to kick people out. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that the W?F considers that a feature rather than a bug. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is the thin end of the wedge, presaging the Stalinist purge in our collective future. W?F is too afraid of the neofascist orthodoxy to allow our long-term but sometimes-controversial editors to stick around. Expressing dissent from the party line while involved in this hobby will soon be outlawed. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Attitude towards article subjects

After a quick read through I've noticed that this “Universal Code of Conduct” will disallow certain behavior among users that are allowed towards article subjects. For example “doxing”. Home addresses for article subjects are often published, while it is frowned upon to even indicate what kind of background users have (or don't have) when they claim knowledge within certain areas. It is common to threaten to ban article subjects (or users acting on their behalf) from editing, while users that clearly has a non-neutral attitude towards the article subjects are allowed to continue editing and often are protected by other (admin) users.

I believe the wording should be changed so it becomes clear that it includes actions towards article subjects. — Jeblad 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Rarely is such personal information relevant to a Wikipedia article, so it should be removed on that basis. (At most, all one needs to know about a living person is what city, or at most neighborhood, that person lives in. Telephone number, contact info, etc. is gratuitous & should be removed as soon as it is found.) If an editor insists it must be included, & cannot present a persuasive argument why (about the only one I can think of is that the house is a well-known landmark & this information is common knowledge), then the editor is being disruptive. It is an issue that can & should be dealt with by the local community. -- Llywrch (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
We must be careful about rule-makers getting carried away by privacy. There is no harm in publicising that Donald Trump lives at "The White House, Washington DC" or that Boris Johnson lives at "10 Downing Street, London". The addresses that I gave are the addresses of the official residences of these people. In addition many stately homes are tourist attractions, but are still the homes of their owners - for example Woburn Abbey (home of the Duke of Bedford). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Codes of conduct reviewed

I am guessing the committee reviewed other codes of conduct to help in drafting ours. Could y'all share that list? Libcub (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Meta-comment about commenting on this page

A request to everyone who is posting on this page: Please do not word your opinion as a fact. I hope we all agree that the difference between an opinion and a fact is very important in discussions such as this one. Remember that you do not speak for every Wikimedian, and I would conjecture that every opinion given on this page (including mine!) has detractors. My understanding is that opinion-stated-as-fact is a common fallacy, used rhetorically to diminish others in a semi-subtle way, by making the holding of a differing opinion seem like an error in reasoning. This seems to me to reduce the effectiveness of a community feedback process, which I, for one, hope will propel us forward in a meaningful, consensus-based way.

Personally I would recommend that continuing to state opinion as fact be included as an unacceptable behavior in the UCoC. Libcub (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

New law with no separation of powers, right?

Legislature - WMF is creating this new Wikipedia-law (But the opinion of the community is valued as much as it is for the renaming of WMF -
judiciary - WMF has the final saying, right?
executive - this is going to be the Trust & Safety - right? So WMF.
So, thanks a lot for the games, where is the bread? ...Sicherlich Post 19:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe true for English Wikipedia, but not for German Wikipedia: We have several separation of power policies. You can't be at the same time check user or burocrat or oversighter or arbcom member. All of them are elected. Arbcom does not enforce its own decitions, non-arbcom admins do this. Same with check user: They don't block sockpuppets that were confirmed by the check user tool. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Der-Wir-Ing for this information. I'm happy to learn that the German Wikipedia's culture is more developed in this aspect, just like in regards admin accountability and recall processes. Is my understanding correct, that legislature (rule making) and executive powers are still not strictly separated? —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Rule making is only done in Meinungsbildern (something a bit like an RfC, but done as a vote), admins have no special right in this process. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this has historical reasons: In en-wiki, Jimbo had dictatorial powers in the beginning and gave admin rights to persons he trusted, later he gave powers to the en-arbcom. Later arbcom and admins were elected. In de-wiki everyone was equal. The community voted to have a arbcom (also) to decide differences between admins. And we made sure no single person can hold too much extra rights. There's a policy that limits the number of oversighters and check user to a maximum of 5. And a minimum of 3, so they can check each others actions. So it is a refined system of checkes and balances. Doesn't work perfectly but quite well in general. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 22:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Links to other codes of conduct

Links to other codes of conduct, for possible comparisons. Please add more!

intentionality

One concern I have with this draft is its frequent reliance on intentionality. It is much harder to prove intention than behavior. I do care some about intention, but more about behavior. I don't think someone should be automatically off the hook for a harmful behavior just because they weren't intending its negative effects. I look forward to seeing how y'all deal with this issue in the enforcement section. Libcub (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly more to the point - how does one prove intention if it is denied by the perpetrator, particularly by an anonymous perpetrator. Also, The road to hell etc... · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vitriol and appreciation

It is interesting to me that many of the commentors are exhibiting behavior on this page that is deemed unacceptable in this draft of the UCoC. By the level of vitriol in various comments, it seems that some of the commentors know this, and are angry and/or afraid that some of their past types of behavior will be more explicitly disallowed, and that there will be consequences for continuing these behavior patterns. I for one will be happy to see either their changed behaviors or their departure from Wikimedia-land. While I do have some concerns about the draft myself, which I have been sharing on this page, I do very much appreciate all the effort that has been put into the draft's development. To the UCoC Drafting Committee and other affected folks: I am so sorry for the insults, assumptions of bad faith and otherwise disrespectful, uncivil, and/or uncollegial tone of many of the comments. Libcub (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There's an immense, overwhelming amount of bad faith in this and the other things you have written in this section. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
There may be, but the eye of the beholder sees largely what it is looking for. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

right vs. privilege

I wonder how many of the disagreements about the UCoC come down to whether the commentor feels that contributing to Wikimedia projects is a right vs. a privilege. I view it as a privilege, but it seems many commentors view it as a right. If there were consensus on this issue in Wikimedia-land, would there be less dissension? If I viewed Wikimedia contribution as a right, some of my stances would change. Libcub (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Right vs. privilege is something, that the WMF should carefully think about. They are just there to serve the community, they were founded, because the normal way of grass-root organisation was getting too tough to handle for volunteers alone, so a more professional service unit, the WMF was created to deal with all the stuff, the volunteers could not deal with adequately.
The WMF is just a service organisation for the community, but it has behaved like the boss in far too many situations. The first I heard of was the premature release of the VM, obviously out of personal vanity or such, the next one I was involved myself was the Superprotect disaster, were the WMF waged an outright nuclear war against the community, again out of pure vanity for a not-ready-for prime-time pet project of some devs. Then came FLOW, and again the WMF played wrong with facts and figures, to get a pet project against the community done. Fortunately this time they didn't use as much force as with the MV.
With FRAMBAN someone in the WMF obviously tried to silence a critic with some unsubstantiated claims, dealt with in star-chambers and without any input from community wanted. Only after they could no longer ignore the shit hitting the fan, they started dealing with this in a halfway decent manner, before it was just like directly from a Kafka-novel.
Now there is the renaming process, again some project, waged by a tiny group within the WMF against the community, for completely unknown reasons. They again dealt with wrong and deliberately biased surveys and figures, ignored community input completely or distorted it in a way to serve their personal interest.
I fails to see, why there should be any trust towards an organisation, that so often has dealt explicitly against the community in the past, and has up to now only shown lip service instead of expected and required sincere apologies. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I need to point out that there is some circumstantial evidence that the motivation for FRAMBAN was other than to silence a critic. But I don't know if that is a more depressing explanation than the one Sänger provides. (I'm being purposely vague here because I don't want to damage people's reputations due coincidence; only T&S knows the real reason for FRAMBAN. But the evidence is enough to raise suspicions.) -- Llywrch (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the real reasons as well, it's impossible to know with such anti-wikimedian things like star chambers. Stuff like that, a trial without any input from the accused, in complete secrecy, without any explanation given, must never happen in a good community. If such anti-wikimedian stuff like star chambers happen, they have at least be done by people openly elected by the community, like stewards or such, people without explicit community vetting must not have any part in such Kafkaesque trials.
For me the explanation with the silencing of a dissenter still looks like the most probable, and it fits in my experience with the WMF. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The issue of rights versus privilege could become important in dispute resolution. After I was blocked on the English Wikipedia, (wrongly in my view and made worse by the fact that I was denied an adequate opportunity to defend myself) I took the liberty of checking the legal situation. I came across the case Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists which was heard in the Supreme Court of California in 1974. In his concluding remarks, the Judge Tobriner (with all other judges concurring) wrote:
"In our present decision we have explained that under the common law, one obligation flowing from this "public service" status is that defendant organizations may not reject an application without affording the applicant a fair opportunity to answer the charges against him."
In his judgement, Judge Tobriner, by way of explanation, said that golf clubs and fraternities did not perform a "public service", but that labour unions and professional organisations did. In the English Wikipedia article WP:NOJUSTICE, the principal editor wrote
"You have no rights here ... thinking in terms of a legal framework is counterproductive".
In reconciling these two statements, it would appear that in the early days, before Wikipedia actually provided a public service, the Wikipedia editor might have been right, but once Wikipedia actually provided a public service (for example, being quoted in court), the views of the judges in the Pinkster case override those of the Wikipedia editor.
In my view, any statement in the section on dispute resolution should ensure that note is taken of the Pinkster case. If this is not done, and there is a repeat of the debacle surrounding the blocking User: Brian Josephson (who, in real life is Brian Josephson, Cambridge emeritus professor and Nobel Laureate) which actually gets to the press, Wikipedia would lose considerable credibility.
References related Brian Josephson's blocking:
Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

codes of conduct in general

I am not clear why there is so much pushback about having a code of conduct at all. Many other online, global, collaborative groups have codes of conduct. I know there have been a few problems with some of them, but there are also problems with not having one. I am not aware of any such group in which participation greatly reduced after CoC implementation. If any of you do know of problems in participation post-CoC implementation, or you know of success stories, it would be great to hear about those. I do understand that respect for and trust in WMF leadership is fairly low right now, and I sympathize with much of that. (At the same time, I can understand why WMF leadership can have frustrations with some contributors, including me.) But the drafting committee has 6 volunteer members (out of only 20 applications) and 3 WMF staff. So the committee is 2:1 volunteers to staff. I have yet to see any evidence that the committee members are not acting in good faith. Have you? Libcub (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice that you ask this question. I cannot speak for everybody, but I can give you two major reasons for my part of the pushback. First of all, WMF is in no moral position to impose their ideas on the voluntary editors. They are not the ones creating content, their primary goal (as specified in the founding documents) is to provide functional servers and gather funds on them. True, some smaller wikis are dysfunctional, but all the huge projects have already written down the rules they discovered to be needed for further development: encouraging new article-writing editors and dealing with vandals. These sets of rules are slightly different everywhere, as required by local cultural specifics. "One ring to rule them all" can only worsen the situation, particularly when I look at previous effects of WMF's blithe interactions with the community. The second reason is kind of an answer to your sentence "I have yet to see any evidence that the committee members are not acting in good faith". I am not too apt in telepathy and I cannot say conclusively what is their faith. However, extremely numerous problems with the draft pointed out in the previous messages (with some of which, as I see, you fully agree) indicate a dangerous level of amateurish approach in the committee. We should remember that although some places in the text have already been noticed as outright harmful to the innocent volunteers, a week passed and nobody bothered to rewrite them. A few more days of lingering will make me inclined to suspect not only amateurishness, but also a certain level of malevolency. I hope that I managed to explain my stance sufficiently. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that a number of editors supported the development of a UCoC, in part due to the FramGate incident last year. Is that not the case? And the UCoC Drafting Committee's membership was 2/3 volunteers. I definitely agree that WMF's handling of some large issues has been problematic, so I get that many editors are suspicious of WMF's goals here. I guess this is a case where I want to assume good faith; how it handles the feedback on UCoC will be where I assess how much the product of this endeavor was pre-planned before the draft was even sent out.
The statement of purpose of WMF as stated in bylaws is:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In coordination with a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
I don't see anything there specifically about servers and fundraising, although those 2 activities do seem in scope of the stated purpose. But establishing a UCoC also seems in scope to me.
My experience in the English Wikipedia is very different than what you lay out for large projects. To my mind, EN:WP has quite substantial dysfunction, which I hope the UCoC will ameliorate.
It is quite common for national and international organizations who distribute a draft of a policy-setting document for community feedback to not respond to that feedback and not to edit the draft until after the feedback period is over. So I actually had the opposite reaction from yours--I was surprised to see any bits of the committee's/WMF's responses to feedback on this page. That seems to have stopped. I am guessing that means that they are feeling overwhelmed at the volume of feedback, which I can understand! Having also been on similar committees in professional associations, it is generally more efficient to do all the processing of feedback once it is all in.
I haven't seen anyone say that local context is irrelevant. Context is mentioned twice in the draft. Many international organizations and endeavors have codes of conduct for their staff and/or volunteers, and I am not aware that they are largely failures. So I am going to be cautiously optimistic that the UCoC will have positive effect in Wikimedia-land. Libcub (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The UCoC effort began before the constitutional crisis caused by WMF encroachment last year.
All "volunteer" committee members were handpicked by the WMF. This is not equivalent to having been selected by the community. All ten members effectively came from WMF decisions.
The understanding expressed above regarding the community-WMF relationship is very inaccurate. We are not volunteers for the WMF. The WMF is one of our support/facilitating organizations. We do not work for them, they support our efforts in specific ways. They do not set policy. Per the WMF's ED, we have "a community with a foundation, not a foundation with a community".
The English Wikipedia code of conduct was built by hundreds of very smart, well-informed people over the course of nearly twenty years, with near-constant debate and consideration of ideas. (It's also, you know, actual community policy, and thus actually means something.) The opposition is not to having conduct rules. --Yair rand (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I certainly understand that many Wikimedians share your view of the relationship between volunteer contributors and WMF. However, WMF's statement of purpose does not enshrine that view. I think that some policy-setting, such as this UCoC, does fall within scope of its purview. Is your view that the Bylaws do in fact disallow activity like the UCoC, or that it doesn't, but should? Libcub (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Minor note: turns out one of the six 'volunteers' is actually a staffer. User:SRientjes is Executive Director of Wikimedia Nederland and a full time employee. They don't seem to have had any involvement prior to their employment by WMNL, so I guess they're not even an ex-volunteer. So at best the committee has 5-4 bare majority of volunteers (and only two of those are actually active in the projects).
Of course, as Yair Rand points out, it doesn't actually matter. The WMF could have selected 15 genuine volunteers and they still wouldn't have any legitimacy as representatives of the community. No doubt the committee is doing its best, but they don't represent anyone except themselves. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

DRY

In software engineering we have a concept called DRY ("Don't repeat yourself"). This CoC is clearly suffering from this. Search for "sexual orientation" and you find it in three places, most CoCs have the list of protected identities in one place in case it needs updating, I have no idea how to fix it here though. Amir (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A more welcoming and expressive start sentence defining the spirit of the document

The first sentence and paragraph of such an document is important and should lay out the spirit of the document. Compare it to starts of important and successful constitutions or similar documents:

  • UNHRD: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
  • US Constitution: We the people…
  • German GG: Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.

The UCoC should start with a strong statement about our mission and that everyone is welcome to join working together to archive it. The first paragraph of chapter 1 (Why We Have a UCoC) is already close to this. I would propose to either change the oder of chapter zero and one and/or create a preamble highlighting our mission and values: free acess to the sum of all knowlege for everyone, collaborative working, neutrality, the possibility for everyone to participate, diversity, inclusivity, acessability… -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point. The mission statement should then be supported by everything that follows, and it should generally be clear how and why every part of the CoC supports the mission statement. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

SECTION 2, UCoC draft: [[Category:]]EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR

Every Wikimedian, whether they are a new or experienced editor, a community functionary, an affiliate or WMF board member or employee, is responsible for their own behavior.

In the affected section, I think this does not follow grammatically and could be re-written as:

Every Wikimedian, whether a new or experienced editor, a community functionary, an affiliate, a WMF board member or employee, is responsible for their own behavior. (20:07, 13 September 2020‎ Udoka Ugo)

Contributor Covenant 2.0

Thanks for allowing the community to review a draft code of conduct. Two years ago Linus Torvalds adopted the Contributor Covenant as Code of Code for Linux Kernel Development. As a Wikimedia movement we (we = Wikimedia movement) are lagging behind in creating a code of conduct covering policies for in-person and virtual events, technical spaces, and all Wikimedia projects and wikis. We should have a concise code. We should have a clear code. The single goal should be to rule out harassment of any kind and contributes to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community. The problems I see with the draft are:

  1. It doesn't promise to rule out harassment
  2. It isn't concise: the text contains five to six times as many words as the Contributor Covenant (excluding sections on Enforcement and Attribution)
  3. It mixes editorial policies into the code
  4. It doesn't define the "we" in the code
  5. It isn't universal (within the Wikimedia movement)
  6. It has over a hundred spelling and grammar flaws, and a curious mix of American and British spelling of English

The Contributor Covenant starts with "We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone". This defines the "we" immediately, and secondly, makes the goal of the code crystal clear. The text in the draft is to vague, and lacks commitment. For sure I do believe that Shani, Antanana, María, James, Pundit are committed to this goal, after reading the Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces from May 22nd, 2020, and that they do want the code to contain such a pledge.
The consequence of the lengthy draft is that is places a huge burden on hundreds of small language communities in translating this text. Those translation costs can be reduced by 80% by adopting for the text of the Contributor Covenant. Less is more.
There is no need for a section on editorial policies like "content vandalism" in a code of conduct aimed at ruling out harassment. It is sufficiently covered in the Contributor Covenant as "Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting" as an example of unacceptable behavior.
The Contributor Covenant concisely defines the scope as "all community spaces". The current draft code does not cover events organized by Wikimedia affiliates, nor online spaces hosted by affiliates. For a claim of the code to be universal, I would like to have the code to be explicitly applicable to affiliate spaces as well. There are signals to the contrary.
Please do adopt the Contributor Covenant, or, at least, provide ample justification to use five to six times as many words, without even making a pledge to rule out harassment. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Ad Huikeshoven makes a good point in highlighting the already-existing Contributor Covenant, especially as this has the merit of a focus on the conditions of shared aims in open-source production. Insofar as the Contributor Covenant has widespread adoption [6], it does seem that a first consideration should have been whether it is appropriate here, and if not, a clear statement about why not? AllyD (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that adopting/adapting the Contributor Covenant is indeed a path worth considering. Another point related to the original post is this: What is the relationship between the Terms of Use and the UCoC? Does one trump the other if and when a situation arises that violates one but not the other? There is some overlap in content, which I recommend we avoid. It is often difficult for large organizations and their communities to remember to update one when the other is updated, which leads to inconsistent policy. Libcub (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Superficially, it seems to me that what is in the Contributor Covenant is alreadt in ToU. The question is how to enforce it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Values and conditions

Valuing language: See "Stalking" / "Trolling": Both parts contain as a condition of "punishability" the proof of bad intention in the "perpetrators" ("with the intent to upset or discourage them." or "to intentionally provoke someone"). These proofs are practically impossible to provide, because people's intentions are usually hidden in their hearts. This leads either to elastic clauses or dysfunctional commandments. This is especially strong in the case of "Trolling", since such an evaluation ("bad-faith") is already used to describe the offence. Valuative terms have repeatedly proven to be problematic in legal texts (sensu lato this is what we are dealing with here).
Conditions: A similar general problem, if you look at the whole text, are conditions. See for example "Hate speech in any form of expression which intends to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin" - thus implying that I am allowed to use hate speech as long as I am not proven the intent to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred. Likewise, I am allowed to make hate speech with the intention to vilify etc., as long as I am not addressing one of the mentioned groups. So it would be perfect if I were to make hate speeches against people with poorer education, a statement like "People who have attended a secondary school only are mentally inferior. One should not only consistently exclude them from Wikipedia, actually one should lock them up in camps, sterilize them and consume them as work slaves.") would be completely legitimate (stupid, eh?). The offence is hate speech, not the one only against certain groups or those for certain purposes. Such counterproductive restrictions are found quite often. I have the feeling that a solid legal view would do the document good, with Jrogers_(WMF) such a view is actually available as part of the committee. Denis Barthel (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Break of code: Then what?

As this argument does not seem to have been raised on this page yet I want to share it here as well after having done so on the German talk page already.

What is completely missing is a "code" for cases where a complaint has been made that the "code" has been broken. Feeling subjectively harassed cannot be the only benchmark. In a global community, it is not surprising that misunderstandings happen. But then what? What is in the proposed text all sounds reasonable, but where does that lead us? From some experience and from some hearsay, there is a fear that non-transparent decisions will come from above without justification and without the possibility of revision. In my opinion, there must something in the "code" so that the handling of conflict cases is also subject to a "code". → «« Man77 »» [de] 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wider context: Codes of conduct within and outside these projects?

Does anyone know whether any of the associated in-scope projects have already adopted a code of conduct - whether through off-the-shelf adoption of Contributor Covenant or those others listed here?

If there is already any use of a CoC, I would have expected to see the potential impact considered as a preamble to the current document. It really should include explicit discussion of the wider context of CoC standards anyway, to show why they are being rejected in favour of a homebrew Code. (For that matter, an interesting thought experiment occurs to me: what if one / several / many projects discussed and decided to adopt something like the Contributor Covenant? Where would such a consensus decision stand relative to this WMF-driven CoC?) AllyD (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

dehumanizing appellations, rhetorical strategies such as loaded questions

It might be good to add dehumanizing or dismissive appellations to the list of insults. They might not be insults per se but they serve the same purpose. I also suggest adding a section on the use of rhetorical strategies such as the use of loaded questions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ) when interacting with someone, since there are many strategies like that people could consciously avoid. A loaded questions is a sort of rhetorical device that can be consciously avoided.

I agree in principle, but will point out that some people do not appear to recognise when they are using loaded questions. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

copyediting

  1. "as per the local communities endorsement" : is there meant to be an apostrophe in there somewhere? "as per the local communities' endorsement" or "as per the local community's endorsement"?
  2. "...background or caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identities, or career..." : why is "sexual orientation" etc singular but "gender identities" plural? Shouldn't it be "gender identity", singular, for consistency?
  3. "Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff: misuse of authorities, knowledge or resources at the disposal of (elected) project functionaries" : what does "misuse of authorities" mean in this context? (If a project functionary SWATs someone?) Was this meant to say "misuse of authority"?

-sche (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff: misuse of authorities, knowledge or resources at the disposal of (elected) project functionaries, as well as officials and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia affiliates to intimidate or threaten others, or for their own material or immaterial benefit.

Like much else here, it's using too many words. First time, in bold, drop the list. Abuse of office: is enough boldness; the following list using plain text will do. And yes, not "of authorities" but "of authority". Add a word to make ". . . as well as by officials and . . ." and drop the "material or immaterial" as unncecessary.

"doxing"

Isn't this a little informal? Wouldn't something like "outing" be a better word, or something different? Of course, we shouldn't sacrifice formality for accuracy, but I think it is worth mentioning. --IWI (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

For me, "outing" is less formal, and is ambiguous with other meanings of the word (e.g. travelling). Deryck C. 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
"As a minimum standard, one should never publish information that a person has tried to keep private and not published online." That immediately makes all our articles about unpleasant individuals backed by books and newspapers harassment. "Sorry, you can't write about Ted Bundy or Al Capone, each has tried to keep information about himself private." --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

First look

On a first read, I have no complaints. The devil is in the details, so I'll read the text again, as well as opinions from others. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

An example of weaponizing the Code of Conduct

I admit I'm adding this after the discussion has moved past this point, but this instance only happened in the last week or so & is something that must be covered in any UCoC.

We have a problem contributor, who (to paraphrase one person reluctantly involved) is not good for Wikipedia & Wikipedia is not good for the individual. (I'm keeping this vague, because my point is the situation, not the person. If someone from T&S insists on knowing more, I will provide this privately.) There is good cause that the only solution is to gently but firmly explain to this person to find another hobby (i.e. ban this person). What prevents any serious discussion of this solution is that in response to criticism this person has previously threatened to harm her/himself, & there is reasonable fear this person is likely to not only threaten this again, but might actually carry out this threat. What we have here is someone effectively blackmailing the community over our implicit goal of being a safe place -- however that term is defined. And due to the vagaries of the American legal system, were someone to kill her/himself in consequence of being banned, someone is likely to sue the Foundation & extort a cash payment simply to keep the matter from going to court & making all of us look bad.

We need some kind of disclaimer (I've struggled with the wording & can't find any that usefully apply here) to prevent any project from being liable for unreasonable responses like this. Contributing to the English Wikipedia -- & any other sister project -- is not therapy, & there are stressors that may set off mentally unstable people despite our best efforts. This is the flip side of "safe places": there are people who will never feel safe any of the projects, no matter how the rules are written. People should be expected to take reasonable criticism & accept rejection. If we do not make this statement, we will either risk liability for triggering unstable people, or be forced to tiptoe around individuals like this. -- Llywrch (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Explicitly proscribing particular forms of bigotry

I am very concerned that the draft UCoC does not explicitly say anything about racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry outside of direct insults and vandalism. This concern is compounded by the fact that I've recently realized that no policy documents at English Wikipedia or the WMF web sites appear to even mention these terms. I believe that this may be a factor in racial bias on [English] Wikipedia, gender bias on [English] Wikipedia, and other documented disparities. If administrators who want to oppose non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of bigotry find they are not backed up by policy, have they been less likely to do so? If rank-and-file editors find that opposition to such bigotry is not backed up by policy nor by administrator action, have they been less likely to do so as well?

I can understand that formulating operational definitions of either negative or positive expectations with regards to expressions of bigotry might seem daunting and perhaps this has deterred policy makers in the past. But we have been writing encyclopedia content about these issues and combatting their more overt forms for going on a quarter century now; the time has come to make a more comprehensive effort and we are up to the challenge.

Consider, for example, an editor articulating a theory about a Jewish conspiracy on a talk page, a conspiracy theory connected to the topic of the associated article and hence an ostensibly valid subject for talk page discussion. The UCoC draft as currently written has a great deal to say about empowering editors, respect, and insults, going so far as to define repeated sarcasm as a possible form of harassment, while being silent about anti-Semitism. So it seems to me that, were a second editor to accurately point out that this conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic, application of this UCoC would suggest sanctions against the second editor for disempowering, disrespecting, or insulting the first editor, and Heaven forbid the second editor to have been sarcastic in the course of directing attention to that aspect of the conspiracy theory.

As a policy this seems custom-made to be employed in a tone argument against anyone who would want to challenge bigotry. Conversely, an editor attempting an accurate call out of anti-Semitism may not be Jewish or may not be perceived that way, of homophobia may be straight, of racism may be white, of sexism against women may be male; so the section on insults does not seem adequate to deal with the case of general non-insult non-vandalism expression of bigotry.

The above hypothetical isn't to say that sarcasm can't actually be involved in an insult, just that for the draft UCoC to elevate sarcasm to a form of harassment while not mentioning racism or sexism or homophobia or anti-Semitism explicitly is incongruous. A UCoC for all Wikimedia projects should have something to say about racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry, and should say it clearly. --Struthious Bandersnatch 08:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is is desirable to list the forms of bigotry? Is it because people are more likely to consider someone else's opinions as bigotry? How long will the list have to be? Also bear in mind that one person's religious or political beliefs may be another person's bigotry. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: Because, as I lay out above, in the absence of actually saying what behavior is proscribed, but instead handwavily saying that bigotry is bad (though we don't even explicitly say that) those behaviors will probably not be effectively prevented.
Believe me, I'm acutely aware that some people's religion may involve sexism or homophobia or any of these other things. I don't know if you are saying that the possibility of bigotry being consecrated in religious tenets is a reason to not try to oppose sexism or homophobia within our communities, but for my part I definitely would say it is not a valid reason.
More generally on the subject of the UCoC, for refined during Phase 2 and reviewed again after the conclusion purposes: unfortunately I didn't notice this until today, but on October 6 an admin asked Jimbo Wales what he thought of the English Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia:No Nazis" with the context Wikipedia is supposed to be (and usually is) a welcoming place, a broad church. Is it actually OK to carve out an exception for racists? and Wales responded. Several other responses from him appear if you view the entire current version of the user talk page. --Struthious Bandersnatch

Caretaker Board

I may write separately on my concerns with specifics of the draft if I can find the time to read through the existing comments to avoid redundancy. However there is a more general point that does not appear to have been raised.

The existing board has unilaterally extended the terms of its own members. While perhaps understandable under the circumstances, it no longer has a mandate to exercise any functions beyond that which would be expected of a caretaker government until such time as a new election is held. In the interim they should not be doing anything beyond handling the day-to-day affairs of the foundation. Hence, merits of this or any particular draft aside it would be wholly inappropriate for the foundation to impose any CoC on the community by fiat at this time.

𝒬𝔔 15:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Why we do not need a Universal Code of Conduct

Let us not re-colonize our world

In this Request for Comments we are correctly addressed as Wikimedia Communities. And this discussion takes place on 40 different language platforms.

This is very important, since our Movement in not a singular movement, but at best the common movement of individual entities towards a common goal.

There are 40 chapters, 114 user groups, 2 thematic organizations. These are active in 3 global projects and 10 content projects with at most 303 language versions. If we add the outside stakeholders the different cultures we are trying to incorporate into our Universal Code of Conduct will be impossible to count.

To be a “baseline of behavior worldwide” the wording will have to be so general – and, in translation, still different and open to discussion – that it cannot serve its purpose or, in the worst case, be so ambiguous that it needs interpretation by a higher instance.

So instead before we go down to the nitty-gritty of rules and regulations it would be much more fitting that we set up a “Charta of Knowledge Rights”. In other words expand on the points put down under the heading “Why We Have a UCoC“ and acknowledge that we should have a Wikimedia 2030 Movements Strategy.

As to the rules and regulations, we have in these last twenty years, established them well in these Communities that have existed for most of that time and have acquired a a sizable membership that on the one hand makes arbitration necessary on the first hand, but that also ensures that the modes for arbitration are being evolved by a communal process unique to the culture of each of that community, on the other.

Smaller, evolving, or new communities should be free to look towards those other – already working – communities and adopt their rules and regulations and, if necessary tailor them to their needs. It may be necessary that such established rules and regulations be collected and codified, because very often they are spread out over numerous pages in our system and hard to find even for old regulars, and even more so for newcomers. This could be a sensible task for the Drafting Committee here at work.

One of our goals that we should incorporate into our “Charta of Knowledge Rights” is the De-colonization of the Internet. And we have started great initiatives in this direction around and after Wikimania 2018 in Capetown. With a Universal Code of Conduct we will be doing just the oposite. We will be imposing a set of cultural values based on what is considered right by a class of educated people living in California, at worst. Or by those most actively discussing here, which will still be not culturally diverse. Or we will be trying to set up some kind of artificial new world-wide common culture to which all idigenous cultures would have to submit. Yes globalization is already doing a lot to get us into this direction, but we also know of the dangers of globalization to regional cultures.

So therefore we should leave as much arbitration of conflicts as possible to our de-centralized entities in the way that works well already.--92.209.144.176 13:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC) sorry, didn't realize I was logged-off --Wuselig (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying as far as opposing colonialism, Wuselig, but a fundamental sticking point seems to me to be the fact that we actually are a centralized entity and an essentially colonial one at that: the outcome of conflict between persons and interests in each project is not unique to the community, at least not conflicts at all levels. For example no Wikimedia project, regardless of what its editing community or an associated cultural group or even a national legislature primarily governing an associated language group says, is going to impinge on the international copyright regime to any great degree.
Or for another example, I for one hope that Chinese Wikipedia and other Wikipedia projects will never willingly submit to overseas censorship of Chinese issues by the PRC, regardless of pressures like Beijing blocking the WMF from joining WIPO. (And I think at least Chinese authorities would regard Wikimedia projects documenting politically independent criticism as a form or facet of colonialism.)
So, although I am not thrilled with the current draft of the UCoC, I do think it's appropriate for Wikimedia to have one as a common ethical baseline of personal behavior to go along with the common legal, technical, administrative, and other baselines that already exist. Its content and implementation should be balanced against concerns of cultural diversity, indigeneity, minority groups, and what degree of autonomy individual projects do indeed have, but it should exist. --Struthious Bandersnatch 18:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Struthious Bandersnatch:, please do not mix up the role of advocacy that we play in our movements and our internal mediating and the policing process that this UcoC is about. In the field of advocacy I have experienced great work done by both the WMF, or Wikimedia Deutschland, especially in the field of copyright laws that you mentioned.
If there is interference by government agents in our internal discussion processes these interactions can be dealt with by the rules established by for instance the Commons Community, or the National Chapters, or the respective language communities. And they will do so better with their locally established Codes of Conduct, because they take into account the common cultural background and the knowledge what is to be considered civil and polite behavior and how people are to be addressed in a respective community.
That differs across the world. I have had the chance to observe this as a Third culture kid nearly 50 years ago. And I also observed how the countries I lived in have evolved over time and gained a great post-colonial self confidence while preserving their local cultures. When we interact on a global level, do business with each other, travel as tourists, it is wise to respect the customs of the countries and the people we are dealing with. And I expect the same respect within our Wikimedia Communities.
And that is why I am opposed to a Universal Code of Conduct.
As to the advocacy part, that is what I mean when I say we should put more effort into developing a “Charta of Knowledge Rights”, which we than can defend in our respective local communities abiding to our local rules of conduct.--Wuselig (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Where Common Rules are necessary

As our international interaction across the movements have evolved there has of course also arisen a need to establish Codes of Conducts for such interactions. But these should also be kept flexible to the unique purpose. If we organize an International Conference the rules and regulations applicable there should be able to incorporate the cultural background of the host country. It should acknowledge that any such meeting will always also be a Clash of Civilizations, but that also means that individual participants should show respect towards other cultures, but also receive tolerance. That does not mean “when in Rome, do as the Romans”, but it means that one should accept that somebody else might dress differently, but not to expect that somebody else dress the same way, or somebody else has different eating preferences, but don't expect everybody at the table to have the same, or that different people have different ways of greeting and sharing affection, but don't expect to have anybody to have the same. There might be common rules in certain places, local laws and restrictions - than these common rules need to apply. So we need different rules of conduct for a conference in Washington, Berlin. Capetown, Bangkok and perhaps someday on the Arabian Peninsula. There may be unintentional trespasses into somebodies sensitivities. Than each person should have the freedom to express such sensitivities and should expect them to be respected.

A Trust and Safety Comity that truly deserves that name could oversee this. But Trust it will only have, if everybody feels fully being represented by it and its decisions are perceived as impartial and open to both sides of the argument.--92.209.144.176 13:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC) sorry, didn't realize I was logged-off --Wuselig (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We cannot discuss a Code of Conduct without taking the sanctioning mechanism into mind

One aspect in the discussion about this UcoC is that we are trying to find a set of sanctionalizable behaviors and also perhaps even the sanctions to be applied, but have not yet discussed how to enforce this in a proper, within the Communities accepted way. With Proper Community involvement and endorsement.

Discussion about this is promised for a second stage in this ongoing process, but I fundamentally believe, that this important step needs to be done within a single process. And a finalized agreement can only be achieved, when both points are agreed upon and are incorporated into each other in a functional way. We cannot settle one thing and than try to make the other fit the first.

As it is the Communities in my opinion should not accept the following:

“The UCoC applies equally to all Wikimedians without any exceptions. Acting in contradiction with the UCoC can result in sanctions being imposed by the community representatives and functionaries of the platforms (as per the local communities endorsement and contextualisation) or the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms. „

Whereas „ as per the local communities endorsement and contextualization“ follows the suggestions I posted above, the additional „or the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms.“ is, in my opinion, by the current organizational anchoring of the Foundation within a Wikimedia Movement almost a threat according to Section 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence.

Why so? The Wikimedia Foundation has failed to implement a representational voice of the Communities in its structure. Its membership is Board only. This Board is structured as follows:

  • four who are appointed by the board itself;
  • three who are selected by the community encompassed by all the different Wikimedia projects;
  • two who are selected by Wikimedia affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations and user groups);

and one emeritus for the foundation's founder, Jimmy Wales

Yes, on paper you could say, there are five members from what we defined as the Communities and why shouldn't the Founder not also have some last word? But the individual persons actually affected by this UCoC have only 3 representatives in this executive organ. What is utterly missing is some kind of legislative body, or a controlling organ to constitute some kind of checks and balances with a representative backing out of the communities.

There is an „Advisory Board“, but that is a group of people selected by the Board itself.

The Black Box in which Office Actions happens (here shown in grey)

Now the Board usually only intervenes in the case of so called „Office Actions“. But even here the Community doesn't have any means of controlling those or even knowing to what extend these „Office Actions“ are applied.

When I looked into the matter I was shocked to see how these „Office Actions“ are handled. It is a process which is a complete inside job, the decision processes passed from one desk to the next inside a closed black-box, where the accused is not heard once. As a matter of fact, the first time the accused every hears that an „Office Action“ was staged, is when he or she is already hanging from the rope. The basic concept of „innocent until proven guilty“ and „the right to be heard“ are completely ignored.

Therefore my conclusion is:

No Sanctions without Representation!

And with representation I mean the installation of a functioning Body of Communities' representatives as a controlling body against the Board. And I do not consider consultations which don't have any legal bindings, like this call for comments we have here as a sufficient form of Community Representation.--92.209.144.176 13:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC) sorry, didn't realize I was logged-off --Wuselig (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

General feedback from the Wikimedians for Sustainable Development

We discussed the draft in our user group and feel that a Universal Code of Conduct is important and would be useful for us and that we are generally okay with the draft in its current version. On behalf of the Wikimedians for Sustainable Development, Ainali talkcontributions 15:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

General feedback from the Wikimedia UK board

The Wikimedia UK board supports the principle of having a Universal Code of Conduct, subject to ongoing review and feedback ahead of the final drafting of the document. The board would like to note its thanks for the time and thought that the drafting committee has put into this so far. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


Updates - Drafting Committee meetings

September 9, 2020

This week was the UCoC committee’s first review session after the posting of the draft UCoC for review. The committee spent an hour discussing feedback so far, how the group would spend their time in upcoming meetings to best approach the feedback about the UCoC, and how they can review and implement requested revisions. They are very interested in understanding the needs of communities across languages, and we are committed to figuring out how to share out feedback on major issues iteratively as the process continues. Committee members gave opinions on how to best collate and summarize the review comments as they come in. Staff will provide a “digest” of active discussion topics and requests that are recurring across different language discussions, as well as a spreadsheet tracking all comments submitted. We will provide a document of the original draft language with highlighting indicating all areas in the text that have been specifically called out for attention.

Plans were made for the next week’s meeting, where the resources mentioned above will help the committee start agreeing upon specific edits to be made. A change log, similar to the one used by Movement strategy drafting processes, will be published when the committee has finished deliberations.

The topics of a spokesperson role was discussed, and will be continued on the Committee mailing list. Drafting members suggested that video chat meetings in specific languages could be a potential beneficial opportunity for the drafting committee to allow other non-English speakers from the Wikimedia community to get their comments recorded. Grammatical changes and content comprehension can be made easier if such conversations are held in other languages. While we have limited translator access, the Trust & Safety team is interested in hearing if there are other ideas to support multilingual outreach. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you make something about limited translator access thing? I've read the Russian version of the draft and was extremely disappointed by how rough and unnatural it is to a native speaker. It seems to be either machine translation or something done by someone having little to no experience in actually translating English texts to Russian, possibly not even a native Russian speaker, as phrasing seems to be completely off language conventions. If you're so inclined to impose a binding set of standards we don't need on us at least be so kind to properly convey it in our language, without weird phrases like "вежливость - это высокий стандарт вежливости", "ненавистническая речь", "хорошая гражданственность" and so on. Thanks.
P. S. I wonder if other translations are as bad as the Russian one... Adamant.pwn (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are.Mautpreller (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
If the Board wants this done, and done soon, then could not some funds have been allocated to engage professional (commercial, third-party) translation services? Pelagic (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this seems a fair, worthwhile, and timely way to move forward on getting useful non-English feedback. Libcub (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Having some experience with "digests" from the Strategy Process, I suspect that they are no good. My experience is that such "digests" are usually extremely distorted and selected. If "staff" provides a digest to the committee, this digest should be published in English here for checking whether it has anything to do with the original feedback.Mautpreller (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
My experience of the digests provided by staff in the strategy process was the opposite - they were open-minded, fair and helpful. And more or less inevitable, we can't expect every member of the drafting committee to follow every line of the discussion on this page. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@The Land: I have read every line of this discussion, twice, with several sections three times. Obviously someone else needs to handle translations, that only expands the comparative discussion length a couple of times. Members were required to agree to a deliberately high amount of hours/week, so I would expect them, yes, to follow every line of discussion, otherwise they shouldn't have applied for the role. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If I personally was on the committee, then I probably would do so. I imagine given the composition of the committee, there are some who will. But it's not a reasonable expectation for everyone - there are now... what, 20,000 words on this page? Not everyone has the same amount of time available, and for anyone who has 'working fluency' rather than 'total fluency' in English it would be a very long and exhausting task. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Patrick Earley (WMF): can you also publish all the digests WMF is providing the committee. For those individuals not reading all the material (which I still believe is necessary), the digests will be critical. However, we need to know that the digests are a) accurate representations b) accurate weightings of discussion c) no nuance is being lost (and nuance makes up a huge amount of the discussion, so I'm not sure how you're going to digest without losing 1% of that). It's all based off public pages, so it's not as if it's non-public information. It would actually be preferable if they were published here 24 hours before (a Tue-Tue schedule) so that editors concerned could try and resolve them before they were given to the drafting committee and then attempt to retroactively pursue it. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, User:The Land, so we made two very divergent experiences. Both experiences are trustworthy and plausible. So what are the consequences? In my view, some standpoints/arguments/opinions are more prone to be considered in "digests" whereas others are not. This is not the best situation since is leads to bias (be it unconscioud or conscious) already in the information basis of the committee. If open discussion and open feedback is really desired, then something should be done about this problem.Mautpreller (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in the digests, I'm more interested in what the Committee will do or rather: has done with the feedback on this and other language's talk pages. Given the rather poor draft (poor in style and wording, not in what appears to be the intention sought), I strongly recommend the Committee to have a debate too on a second version of the draft (and if necessary even a third). I can hardly imagine that from the first draft the Committee will be able to jump to a final draft in one step. Eissink (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC).
Regardless of our disagreement elsewhere, Eissink, I do agree with you that a more iterative drafting approach would have been desirable. If only the committee had at their disposal some kind of collaborative document-editing software that they could use to work on the Draft asynchronously between their weekly meetings, and to share with us their progress... Pelagic (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello, all. I’m posting this response here even though it’s to a question asked by @Nosebagbear:, because I suspect others would like visibility. While I’m afraid we don’t have the ability to follow that suggestion precisely (we don’t have staffing enough to do that), what we CAN do is publish the digests along with our summary of each weekly meeting. If the people involved in the conversations feel something is missed or there were mistakes, we can easily deliver that to the committee for the next meeting. That way, we can make sure that our summaries feel reasonable and fair and also give the participants in the conversation who would like to read the digests more than 24 hours to review them, which should help those who have less time to visit Wikimedia as routinely. The committee will also have access to a spreadsheet logging all comments made, across languages. In terms of how much the Committee is reading all incoming comments, I’m afraid I have to say that I think that’s impossible. :( The UCoC is posted in 30 languages and conversations are happening in several already - German, French, Dutch, and more. They simply don’t all have the ability to follow all those languages. Of course, English is a common language, but I wonder if their reading all incoming comments only in the languages in which they are fluent would risk biasing them to see discussions in those languages out of proportion in regard to the summaries of the languages they don’t speak. The Committee does very much have an intense interest in how the discussions are going. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
That should be a big clue that the WMF is taking on a job that they in no way qualified to do. If no one on the WMF can even speak the languages of the many cultures this discussion is going on in, how do they even hope to create a universal Code of Conduct for all those cultures? The answer is, they can't. This code can't help but be applied to and enforced primarily on the English language Wikipedia. — Carl Henderson (talk)
@PEarley (WMF):, from that, I have a couple of queries: for some reason the 30 days is running from the time any version was provided, rather than on notice to the last of the Wikipedias, which already means some will have missed a significant amount. Additionally, issues with the digest that occur in the final update won't have any dedicated discussion time to raise it. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. “The UCoC is posted in 30 languages and conversations are happening in several already... They simply don’t all have the ability to follow all those languages.” So far, the number of languages with (high, med, low, none) volume of comment is (1, 4, 4, 24) [including new ones that have been added to the original 30]. Hopefully the participation rate will improve as more communities are notified. (I am surprised to see nothing in ar, fa, pl; but people rom those communities may already be commenting in en.) In case it’s useful to anyone else: I’ve created some transclusion pages DUTT3, DUTT2, DUTT1. DUTT3 allows you to see if any discussions have cropped up, without having to click/tap through to 24 different pages. Feel free to move them elsewhere if appropriate. Patrick, could you inform those whom you think might benefit but not be reading here? Hope that helps, Pelagic (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pelagic: - very useful, will share with my team and the committee. Much thanks! Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

September 16

Short meeting, but a few updates. The Committee went over the first digest of summarized requested changes, and agreed on a division of labour to address potential changes for each section. The Committee also agreed to lengthen future meetings, so that more revisions could be approved in real-time, and discussions on difficult items can have more space. The committee is preparing a group statement outlining the revision work they are taking on based on the responses received so far. Look for this soon. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

September 23

The focus of this meeting was identifying revisions that have committee consensus to be implemented. Based on community feedback, the committee went through sections in teams of two committee members to identify simple “copy-edit” changes that were straightforward, or more complex items that needed committee discussion.

Facilitators and staff members took notes of the discussion that took place within each section on what needed to be finalized to move forward. Plans were made to complete review of suggested changes in the next week, and start preparing a set of final edits. A letter to the community was also drafted by a committee member to announce that feedback and commentary from the community was well received and taken into consideration - this will be published Monday, Sept. 28, and detail the focus areas for revisions. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

September 28

UCoC drafting committee has identified and will be addressing some major areas of concern from multiple Wikimedia communities. See the draft page for details. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice that they have identified areas of concern, Sydney, but no digest for the 23rd? Was there a Wednesday meeting on the 30th or has something happened to the schedule? Patrick, any news? Pelagic (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Pelagic, the second and third digests that went to the Drafting Committee before their meetings is now available. We will supply them the last digest today and will publish that as well. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Pelagic (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Interim) Message from the Drafting Committee

moved from draft page as part of final update Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedia Communities, The Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee thanks you for reviewing and commenting on the draft as it is so far. The committee is addressing feedback it has received from at least 11 translations of the document; we will update the Meta draft as soon as we have aligned on revisions. Please note that the last date for community feedback on the original draft is Wednesday October 7, 2020.


We have already started discussing your comments and are considering how to improve the text. We will continue to monitor the discussions and take aboard comments and integrate into the new draft. To date we have already identified and are addressing the following major areas of concern from multiple Wikimedia communities:

  • Acceptable versus expected behavior & Mandatory versus encouraged behavior. Communities have asked which behaviors will be “compulsory” and / or lead to sanctions. For example, is kindness “compulsory”, and a lack of kindness a violation of the code? We are discussing these issues and how to more clearly describe what are the behaviors that we would like Wikimedians to engage in, behaviors that all Wikimedians must comply with, and behaviors that we do not want to see in Wikimedia spaces.
  • Respect, politeness, friendliness, formal / informal address. We have learned that some cultures differentiate between friendliness and politeness. Politeness is an behavioral expectation that most WIkimedia communities agree upon, while friendliness could be a behavior that we would like to see Wikimedians engage in, but that no one can enforce. We will be revising the next version of the Code of Conduct to address these concepts with more clarity.
  • Concerns about terms / concepts that are not universally recognized or practiced. Based on communities’ feedback, we have reviewed and reworded several sections to use language or concepts that would be accepted by multiple non-English speaking Wikimedia communities. At the same time, we decided to keep many of the original terms and concepts from the first draft, and qualify them.
  • Questions about definitions, limitations, and overlap of terms such as Respect, Empathy, Solidarity, Citizenship, Civility, Collegiality, Stalking, Doxxing, Gender / Sex / Sexual Orientation / Gender Identity. We have reviewed and reworded several sections to use language or concepts that would be accepted by multiple non-English speaking Wikimedia communities.
  • Content vandalism and abuse of the projects. Some concerns have been raised that the Code of Conduct will be used to facilitate censorship and limit freedom of expression. We are reviewing the Content Vandalism section to stress that unacceptable behavior in this area includes hampering progress on projects and promoting hate speech.
  • Sexual harassment. The wording of this section came in for criticism as it was considered to be unclear and not addressing the heart of the issue. We are developing alternative wording.

Please keep us posted with further questions and concerns about the UCOC draft. If you would like to join us for work on Phase II (Application and Enforcement), please contact Patrick for more information.

Sincerely, RachelWex (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC) and the Universal Code of Conduct Committee

Confirmation/Approval of Final UCoC by Meta-Community

This topic has a few scattered comments above, but short of duplicating them into one category, it seemed best to start a new topic on it.

I'd like to see an enactment clause built into the UCoC, along the lines of:

Proposal 1

5) Approval: The UCoC will take effect when both behaviour and implementation/enforcement sections have been completed, and both of the following conditions have been met:

5.1) A majority vote by the WMF Board of Trustees

5.2) A demonstrated consensus of the Wikimedia cross-project meta-community, identified by a dedicated yes/no RfC, and closed by a panel of Stewards

Proposal 1 rationale

That's just one suggestion, but I think it's got to be made clear now - BoT agreement is fine, but implementing a UCoC without, at least, consensus (usually c.60+%) of the meta community is impossible. Especially if there are to be any late stage WMF-made tweaks to the text. Attempt to implement by BoT dictate or interpretation of involvement as acceptance is asking for absolute chaos.

Whether we wanted to make it so that a consensus of both total editors and communities had to be made, or just the former, were required is one worthwhile question even if everything else seemed good. People who agree with the general concept, but have different phrasings/idea, please feel to add them as extra options.

I know the de-wiki discussion is fairly unconvinced with the whole process as well, but anyone in a position to either duplicate the topic to other languages (or if they're already there, let us know!) would be great. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't bring up the obvious but I doubt meta community is very much representative for the small wikiprojects. In my experience, most of those don't have people who have time to spend on Meta, participating in complicated policy discussions in legal English - it is good enough if they can produce decent content, and they're unlikely to show up on this page. Now, if it should become true, as it has been hinted above tentatively for a couple of times, that UCoC will be forced only on the communities that do not have their own CoCs, which mostly means small wikiprojects, then the approval of the Meta community, however well intended, will be like having the English Parliament decide the taxation in America. And we all know how great a success that idea was. (Except this time, the law won't be even translated into the languages of those governed, because neocolonialism is cool. WMF could really use some kind of introductory course into the cultural and lingustic diversity on this planet.) --Ehitaja (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It has been stressed that the UCOC will apply to all communities and there will be no opportunity to opt out. Some WMF staffers have said they don't think it'll have much impact on the big projects, but 'think' and 'much' are rather slippery concepts. Not 'much' impact could mean 'a couple of T&S bans per year', which would be unacceptable to the large part of de-wp and en-wp that don't want any expansion of T&S' role. Alternatively T&S might be currently planning to entirely leave UCOC enforcement to the local processes in certain projects, only to change their minds in six months. Handing a group power on the assumption that they will never use it is extremely unwise.
As for a meta-RfC, you're right that its an imperfect mechanism, but its better than the Board reading a three page summary of the feedback given on various platforms and then guessing. If anything a meta-RfC reduces the barrier for entry; users can simply sign the support or oppose section to be heard rather than having to produce a manifesto that will make T&S sit up and go 'good point, we should mention that to the Board'. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Aside from the major problems with the Code, any attempt by the WMF to enforce it contrary to consensus just returns us to the major crisis conflict we had during Framban. Alsee (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Proposal 2 rationale

Discussion

Hello Nosebagbear, some initial thoughts on the proposal to add such text into the draft here. Parameters around acceptance are outside of the mandate that the Drafting Committee is currently working with - they’ve been tasked with drafting “minimum standards of behaviour” for consideration. So asking them to include an enactment clause in their current draft would be out-of-scope at this stage.

We also need to be careful in looking at acceptance/non-acceptance from Meta-wiki contributors as the final indication the movement at large is being represented. Contributors have commented in the past that some do not comment on Meta. We have received feedback that large, movement-wide processes, such as the Movement Strategy process, can be more inclusive and may better reflect the positions of those in our smaller, growing communities primarily affected by the UCoC.

The second Phase of UCoC will have wider, facilitated discussions, using some of the techniques developed in movement strategy, to gain a more movement-wide acceptance of proposed standards and enforcement. Of particular importance will be including the perspective of people who were a target of harassment as well as getting rich input from administrators and functionaries whose hard work is the backbone of policy enforcement on their local projects or globally.

I think this is an important topic to explore, and could certainly be part of the second phase of discussions. At present, however, would the main talk page for UCoC might be a better place to explore these aspects? Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@PEarley (WMF): - we would need a single platform that allowed complete oversight of exactly who was participating for a yes/no decision - the "we talk through lots of routes" or "there is consensus, if you factor in all these other portals", which are impossible for any interested individual to go and check, is simply not viable. Just as I couldn't be the one verifying to everyone if the BoT had voted, neither can there be any involvement by the WMF either in evaluating the discussion (including in choosing those who do so), but also in choosing its location or forum. Spreading the word through different routes, always, but not at any loss of cohesion or clarity. If this wouldn't be applicable now, why would it be applicable in the second phase - it's not implementation of the UCoC in action, it's triggering its existence. I could see a reasonable case being made for "it must also be signed off by the consensus as assessed across the broader set of forums" as well, but the agreement of a forum that is less subject to differing interpretations is necessary. Disagreements as to whether "community consensus" because of disagreements over some forums speaking for others rendered the recommendations under serious scepticism on the more controversial areas. It must not happen again. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The failure to set clear criteria for acceptance/non-acceptance ends up causing a lot of the excess drama around this sort of discussion. There's no way to tell what considerations are influencing the decision-makers, or even if they're paying attention to feedback on any particular platform. The inevitable result is people trying to reenact the Storming of the Bastille to prove that the powers-that-be have to listen to them or else the entire project will collapse. If they can see that their views are being counted in the final decision its going to remove a lot of the heat. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@User:PEarley (WMF): This "phases" dvision is an important point. I am convinced that the question of an Ucoc cannot be reasonably discussed if the character of this body of rules is not clear. "Minimum standards of behaviour" cannot be set without indicating what that means in practical application. The questions of acceptance and enforcement will have to be discussed now, not some time later. (Besides, I don't trust at all the "techniques developed in movement strategy". They have certainly not proven efficient in "gaining a more movement-wide acceptance", on the contrary.) Mautpreller (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @PEarley (WMF):, sorry to drop you an on-wiki message as well as an email (they're on related, but different topics). But the initial Board statement about the UCOC stated that they would be doing 2 separate ratifications/votes on their side, one after each stage. Why would it therefore be inappropriate for Community to require ratification on our side in two distinct stages? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe they're extending us the courtesy in order to prevent us from the reaching the unfortunately mistaken conclusion that W?F is answerable in any way to the community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Offering constructive feedback on this document should not be construed as support for the final product

I'm placing this here to speak for myself, though I'm sure others feel a similar way. No hostility intended, but I think it's important for the WMF to realize that just because a person participates in the draft feedback does necessarily not mean they endorse the final product, even if their recommendations are incorporated. Further more, just because I am participating in the draft feedback does not mean I support the notion of a broad UCOC as a concept. Please consider my participation here as a desire to make sure that the outcome causes the least problems for the Wikimedia community, nothing more. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

An excellent point - I'm both against the UCoC in general, and I also feel it was not correctly brought to this stage, but I still feel a need to improve it as much as possible. It still necessitates specific (not implied) meta-community sign-off Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
"Me too". I’m not fully against a guiding code of some sort, though I'm disappointed that other approaches weren't considered such as a model code or a requirement that groups develop their own codes which address specific points. But it's going to happen whether we like it or not. I'm not confident our concerns will be heard, but I want to at least try to contribute and make the mandatory code at least less bad. Doesn't mean that I support the process or the outcome, especially since we don’t get to discuss the revised draft before it goes to the Board. Pelagic (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a great point, and it's important to realize that the community will get the final say on the adoption. It would be far better if the community was given that say in the manners that have served us well (on-wiki discussion, with changes gaining consensus, perhaps followed by a formal process like an RfC), rather than what seems likely to happen - the WMF attempting to enforce this, a Fram-ban like response, and the months of discord that caused the first time. (Forgive me if I'm being a bit enwp-centric, but that's what comes to mind first.) It seems like it would be easier to make sure that this had community support before adoption, rather than defending the indefensible in the heat of the moment. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 02:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Consensus", and moving us forward

Consensus, at least in English Wikipedia

We talk a lot about "consensus" in Wikimedia-land. What does consensus actually mean? In the English Wikipedia, consensus decision-making is currently defined as:

group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all

I do not think that is what we usually do in en:wp, when we label a decision as a consensus.. From what I have observed over the years, what we more often mean by the term is:

  1. A proposal or question is developed by one or more editors, and shared on some page.
  2. Editors who know and care about the issue add their thoughts to the relevant page, usually explaining their position and rationale. I have seen many comments whose tone and content are far from collaborative, far from trying to rationally convince other editors to their stated position.
  3. Sometimes, either due to a defined process, or just organically:
    1. Editors who know and care about the issue categorize their positions as Support or Oppose (or such variations as Strongly Support).
    2. Often, one of the originators of the process (or someone else), tallies up the Supports and Opposes, and characterizes the tally (and, sometimes, more deeply, the nature of the comments) as indicating one of the following: there is a consensus for the proposal, a consensus against the proposal, or a lack of consensus. The percentages of Supports or Opposes out of all labeled positions to declare a consensus seems to range from just over 50% up to maybe 70%.

This is really more of a discuss and vote approach, with most votes being submitted before all discussion occurred. I think that many people and organizations who do use formal consensus decision-making processes would be rather surprised that we would label our process "consensus", because it relies heavily on voting, and, even more importantly, that much voting occurs before the discussion is finished. This process is not inherently bad, but it isn't really consensus.

Consensus of what groups?

Editor-owners

I and many others have discussed elsewhere the issue of some editors having proprietary feelings and behaviors regarding their edits, whole articles, whole categories, etc., even though en:wp has a ownership of content policy against it. If I remember correctly, research shows that, perhaps unsurprisingly, people who feel ownership over something are more likely to engage in processes where "their" content may be contested than those who don't.

People with more free time

One of the reasons I dislike our very imprecise/informal usage of the term "consensus" is that it implies to many that a significant percentage of users (at least those who care about the issue) were involved in the decision process, which is typically very, very far from the truth. I don't know a way to get even just a fairly good estimate, but I would guess that at any one time, there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of decision-making processes going on in en:wp. There is no one central place that lists all of them. So I would guess the more time spent on identifying processes would mean the more of them that a user would comment on. And that doesn't count the time spent reading a proposal and its comments. Even at the times in my life when I had a lot of time to devote to English Wikipedia, I knew that htere were many, many decision-making processes that I wasn't aware of.

Who has lots of free time? I'll leave it to others to find official statistics that might help answer that question. We do know that even in the US, within households led by 1 woman and 1 man that women spend quite a bit more time on housework than men. I think that we also know that there is a positive correlation between income and leisure time, in part becuase richer people can pay others to do tasks that they don't want to do themselves. And we definitely know a fair amount about how income (and I think energy) is negatively related to being on the marginalized side of various demographic categories, such as those defined by gender, race, ethnicity, gender orientation, appearance, religion, indigeneity, and disability.

So, getting back to the question, who has lots of free time? In the US, then I woud expect that to be cis, middle/upper class, white, able-bodied, etc., men.

Current editors vs. those who have left becuase of the environment

I would postulate that the issue I discussed in the previous section is one reason our editor numbers often skew towards people from more majoritized communities. I am not saying that cis, white, etc., men are inherently evil—heck, _I_ personally fit most of those categories. What I do think happens over time is that white, middle/upper socioeconomic class, male, etc., people end up being the people who have the most time to spend on editing Wikimedia, and therefore Wikimedia-land is imbued with more of their culture (set of values, practices, etc.), than cultures of other categories of people. Women, Black and Brown people, trans people, etc., may over the years dip a toe in the Wikimedia water. What they will find not infrequently is a culture that is not their own, and which they may find unpleasant or worse. So, unsurprisingly, they leave. This is a self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing machine. Again, I am not claiming that people with more majoritized identities, like me, are all necessarily trying to make minoritized people go away, although I certainly think some do.

Readers

In Wikimedia-land, the status of readers (and viewers, listeners, etc.), and opinions on the care/representation they should receive, has fluctuated over time, across other categories of WM citizens, and between individuals. I remember one of my firsts negative experiences when I started editing in en:wp was a comment from another editor saying soemthing along the lines of "I don't care about the readers!" (which did shock me). I hope and will assume that the number of editors with such feelings is miniscule, but it probably still is not 0.

I don't know that anyone has attempted a go at the number of readers per editor, but clearly readers are our largest stakeholder group. Perhaps I am reading what I want to see, but the current strategic plan recommendations do seem to include readers as full stakehoders, which I think is crucial.

Now, I'm assuming there must have been at least a couple of issues over time for which we solicited feedback from readers. (Does anyone remember any, either in en:wp or elsewhere?) But we very rarely, at least in en:wp, try to gather feedback from them in our decision-making processes. I think I recall that there has been some related to user interface/experience design, and some in the current srategic planning process, which I think is great.

Consensus by how many?

In the English Wikipedia, the Statistics page tells me that we currently have 130,274 active users, which we define as "Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days". I believe that the highest number of editors I have ever seen weigh in on some issue is a little over a thousand. That amounts to less than 1% of active editors, let alone if we broadened the timeframe for editors, or included readers. I think very few organizations who claim to follow consensus decision-making would consider such a low number as showing true consensus. Many significant decisions are made by only a few dozen people active in the process.

I am not here blaming specific individuals or groups for this. I don't even feel it is always a negative thing. But overall, it is a systemic issue, just like other societal systemic issues such as racism and sexism. I do very much appreciate editors who are collegially involved in en:wp decision-making processes, even when I disagree with them.

The WMF moving us forward

So .... I have made the following claims:

Our "consensus" is skewed toward a group of users that act against en:wp policy.

Our "consensus" is skewed away from people ( from marginalized communities, due to income inequality and en:wp culture.

Our "consensus" has often excluded readers, our largest stakeholder group.

Our "consensus" is made by tiny slivers of our community.

Why do I bring these up in the context of the draft of the first part of the UCoC? It is my hope that the Drafting Committee and the Board of Trustees will:

  • remember that it is important during policy formation and considering feedback to understand who is at the table and who is not, and why
  • consider as important stakeholders:
    • future editors, and
    • past editors who left us because they encountered an unwelcoming environment

I look forward to a more collegial Wikimedia-land, which I believe the UCoC will facilitate. Libcub (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I get very concerned, though, when comments along these lines get made, since it in effect provides a blank slate to the WMF to state they're acting on behalf of these stakeholder groups - without providing demonstration that it is the genuine viewpoints of, say, readers. Even a survey that had 1000 readers would be a vastly worse survey than 1000 active editors (I also note that until a few years ago, we used a much better definition of "active", along the lines of 30 edits in a month). Indeed, a back of the envelope confidence calculation for a reader survey of that size showed that it couldn't even come close to statistical relevance (even if everyone agreed, which obviously wouldn't be the case!). It's also worthy of note that current editors are the group who will be most affected by the UCoC. We are also the group who won't get the benefit in "knowing what we were getting into" - this is, let's say the UCoC is significantly antithetical to my beliefs in what Wikipedia is, I am stuck between abandoning an activity I've spent over 1000 hours on, or enduring something I view as unacceptable. Whereas, if I were a new editor, choosing not to edit would be a much more viable choice. I'd also dispute that the WMF is inherently more adept at speaking for stakeholders (bear in mind it, too, is a principal INVOLVED stakeholder here) other than itself than the Community is Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I view the stakeholder groups who will be most affected to be future editors, and past editors who left because of negative interactions from current editors, whom we might win back. The future is longer than the past. (I believe that we will actually gain more editors than we will lose.)
Even if I agreed that current editors were the stakeholder group most affected by UCoC, I do not think that that means their feedback should automatically take priority. In the first instance, Wikimedia-land exists for the content, not the content creators. If UCoC is implemented, I agree that the choices for you (and every other current editor) would be staying in the project and behaving according to the UCoC, or leaving. I believe that is how it should be. If there are editors that don't like WM-land policies, leaving does seem like a perfectly reasonable option. I myself have left collaborations when my views and theirs became incompatible. Some of those departures certainly made me feel sad, but I think such things are the way of the world.
To me, your argument about current editors expresses a sense of entitlement that I feel is unjustified. English Wikipedia, for example, has its no ownership of content policy. (I do not know if documents similar to this are in other projects.) Your argument seems to violate the ban on ownership, and, for me, illustrates why we need the UCoC. Editors do not own their edits, articles, etc. I do not inherently value a veteran editor over a new editor. Why should a current editor who has over 1000 hours of work in the projects have their voice amplified when it comes to behaviors? When a jurisdiction passes and implements a law, people who have lived there since before the law takes effect rightly are rarely granted immunity from that law. Why should they? (This is different than saying the law only effects actions that take place after it comes into effect.) And, as far as I know, at no time in its history has WMF or the community ever promised editors anything about the future of editing, and while I do think editors deserve respect and gratitude from each other and other stakeholders, I don't think we (including me) deserve special status, especially when it comes to our interaction behaviors.
I do agree that the WMF has multiple times spoken for stakeholder groups without a real attempt (or at least success) at deep discussion that would give them full information upon which to summarize those groups' sentiments.
Nevertheless, I believe that the BoT should, and definitely with feedback from other stakeholder groups, envision what community behaviors will best help it achieve its mission, values, and vision, and approve a Universal Code of Conduct that describes and enforces that. Libcub (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I for one, would prefer to avoid a mutual admiration society of happy little POV pushers, paid spammers, fringe theory advocates and incompetents taking over the encyclopedias and destroying their value and credibility while the WMF and the authors of the CoP are too busy patting each other on the back to do anything about it. I am not saying this is what they want, but worried that this may be what they get. There can be a big gap between desire and performance, even if there are no influences intentionally steering people in the wrong direction. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
But, Pbsouthwood, surely there is a middle ground, in which we can exclude POV pushers, paid spammers, etc., and still accept volunteers who want write about, say, early childhood development and education? Don't you think we could toss the promotional fluff about snake-oil sellers, without running off editors who want to write about nurses, librarians, and teachers? These are all female-dominated subjects that are underrepresented in Wikipedia, and among its editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I think we can if we are careful, and pay sufficient attention to analysing exactly what the CoC text actually means, and whether it is usefully enforceable to achieve the ends that advance the actual purposes of the projects, and can be expressed with sufficient clarity that we can agree on what it means. I do not know whether this is happening, or is going to happen, as what we are seeing here is fairly one-sided at present. We are not seeing whether our arguments and suggestions are having any useful effect. That will become more evident when the next draft is published, after which we move in a different direction, which may be towards a useful document, or more disagreement. Much depends on how much real attention the drafting committee is paying to the arguments and suggestions proposed here, and how much skill they have at redrafting to take into account those concerns which are valid. As a debugging exercise, the commentators have found a lot of bugs, which is a strong point of crowdsourcing to a diverse crowd. Are the drafting committee going to demonstrate sufficient skill at fixing the bugs that have been identified? I don't know. but I hope they do, or at least recognise that further work may be neeeded until they get it good enough to work reasonably well. I will also say that I hope it is recognised that whatever the final document turns out to be, it will still have bugs, and must not be considered immutable. A policy of revision at a maximum interval of about 5 years, with more urgent amendments whenever the necessity arises would be helpful too. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The WMF is just a support agency for the community, the community is the highest entity here. The WMF only exists because the community created the Wikiverse. The WMF must not have any power over the Wikiverse besides some pure technical decisions (and there they have to be truthful, not lying for their pet projects, as they have done in the past), for any community decisions only persons explicitly vetted by the community through elections etc. should have anything to say, the WMF has absolutely no creditability in this regard. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
"Support" is only one piece of WMF's purpose, according to its bylaws. I am certainly aware that many Wikimedians believe that the community is above the WMF, but nowhere do the bylaws state or imply that it is subordinate to the community. Yes, the WMF came into existence because of the community, but it now functions as its own organization. I am not saying I think that is good or bad, but it is the truth.
Like you, I do definitely believe that WMF has sometimes acted without full truth, full transparency, full accountability, etc. Their credibility in my eyes has gone up and down over time, for sure. I await with interest the enforcement and sanctions section that will be part 2 of the UCoC. I shall pay particularly close attention to how the UCoC is to be enforced on the WMF and its administration, and the BoT and its members, and how they will be sanctioned when their behavior is unacceptable. Libcub (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
They have usurped more rights, and perhaps in a strictly legalistic way the may have officially more rights, but legitimately they are only a technical support agency. They completely live from the content, the community generates, their only legitimate purpose is to support the community and never ever even dare to try to rule anything. Nobody, who is not explicitely vetted by the community must ever have anything to say about the rules af the community. This is a grass-roots enterprise, the only purpose of the org is to support, full stop. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that specific vetting by the community is required for someone to have something to say - on en-wiki, everyone has the same voice when it comes to a policy discussion. But for an organisation with a poor transparency record, to have the ability to select the members of a drafting panel, and have the ability to implement a binding form, and the ability to state that any case falls within a few specific non-covered zones, with them being the only ones capable of saying if a case does or doesn't, AND seemingly no ability for communities to accept whether it has been ratified. No. No way. They can have that authority when I have access to all their internal documentation and get to choose the outcome of their internal disciplinaries. (And no, I don't think that's wise, obviously, just like I don't think the level of WMF control in a community activity is wise). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we make people feel safe? Do you?

I saw this checklist posted on Twitter, an it made me think of this discussion:

A checklist for safety; do you feel:

Safe to experiment
Safe to be wrong
Safe to share your thoughts
Safe to be who you are
Safe to challenge something you disagree with
Safe to not know the answer

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Feeling safe is a personal thing. No one can be forced to feel safe, and some people may feel unsafe in any given situation. This brings up another point - what do we actually mean by "safe"? Does everyone connect the same meaning with the word? I have no data, but suspect not. Do we want to make the projects a safe place for people who want to destroy them or misuse them for purposes that go against the terms of use and policies of the projects? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I used to feel somewhat safe, but not anymore. Three of the issues I've been subjected to were reported to either ArbCom or T&S, or both. It is very difficult to feel safe when you don't know if the proper action was taken if any. When advocacies are exposed, and there is no significant change in the behavior to stop or prevent it, the lack of action emboldens the offender, and therein lies one of the problems. The same applies to HOUNDING. The problem is compounded if the hounder has allies in high places on WP. If the latter, I'd much prefer to deal directly with WMF. At this point, all we can do is AGF and hope for the best. In the interim, we're losing longtime editors, but then the attitude is that we're disposable anyway.Atsme📞📧 21:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • In occupational health and safety (South Africa, probably also other places, but I am not familiar will all the laws) we have the condition reasonably practicable which applies to all requirements for safety, as an absolute requirement for maximum safety of all at all costs would necessarily shut down many essential industries. The internet cannot be made absolutely safe, nor can Wikimedia projects in specific. Attempts to regulate for absolute safety cannot work, and will provide weapons for the ill-intentioned, biased, POV pushers, politicals, and other unethical actors for use against the building of the projects within our policies. We create a gateway for the destruction of the projects by attrition and wikilawyering. We reduce the safety of good players by making them vulnerable to misuse of the rules by bad players who don't care as long as they win. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • A big part of our lack of safety comes from being a global high profile website that covers every hotbutton topic, and that holds almost all of its internal discussions in public where they are permanently recorded. I subscribe to a couple of magazines that cover some quite contentious issues, but if I were to be offended by their choice of an image for their front cover I would have no way to find out who was present when they took that decision, what the alternatives were and who were the individuals who argued for various alternatives. As long as we keep such an openness on our sites it is going to be difficult to make them safe areas for contributors. One fairly easy solution is to encourage editors to edit under a pseudonym that can't be easily used to connect to their real world identity; we could even change the account creation process to strongly discourage names that can be linked to your off wiki identity. The more radical solution would be to restrict large parts of the site to extended confirmed editors, including RFAs, RFCs and possibly even deletion discussions - though with deletion discussions you would have to keep access for anyone who had edited the page being considered for deletion before it was nominated for deletion. Of course the risk of such a radical step away from openness is that we reduce our ability to recruit new editors, but IPs and newbies would still be able to edit most articles, just not go "behind the scenes" until they had an account that had been very active for a month or fairly active for a longer period of time. As I'm sure Atsme would testify that isn't a 100% solution - we also have conflicts between regulars. But it wouldn't surprise me if some of the regulars would behave better if the tone of internal conversations was improved by making them internal, and the sanction of being blocked meant losing access to those behind the scenes conversations. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Subsidiarity principle

Hi, in my humble opinion the UCoC is too vague and culturally variable. It leaves room for very different interpretations, depending on who enforces it. Also, there is no RfC intended in the local communities, which is not in line with the subsidiarity principle of the movement strategy 2030. So i have a few questions concerning the implementation:

1) If Admins and/or Arbcoms do not see a necessity to sanction e.g. a harassment claim after an evaluation of the claim, will Trust & Safety overrule their decision(s) via office action?

2) Will Trust & Safety sanction in wikipedia language versions when there was no previous Admin or Arbcom decision?

The background of my questions is that i recently communicated with two sides of a harassment claim resulting in a global event ban for one of them and several problems appeared: the accused person was not informed that there was a T&S trial happening. That person was not informed about any details of the claim and did not have an opportunity to defend oneself, but just received a notice that there had been a harassment claim leading to the ban. Third party wikipedians who know the conflict were not consulted. The history of the conflict between the two persons (existing for years) was thus not taken into consideration. Not only did it seem to me as an unfair process, but also was the information processed by T&S biased, as only one side was heard and previous events were not considered.

Regarding the Case Review Committee, i have some further questions:

3) how many rounds of selection of CRC candidates are there?

4) are candidates informed which round of the selection process they passed?

5) why are some office actions not appealable?

Another point is that co-optation of committee members in contrast to an election process causes like-minded homogenity in a committee and not diversity of thought. This is not in line with the principle of inclusivity & participatory decision-making.

All the best, --Ghilt (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ghilt. :) I’ll leave the questions about the code to volunteers, since this isn't being drafted by Trust & Safety, but I did want to note that I have answered your questions about the Case Review Committee on the talk page for that committee, since it’s not really part of the UCoC and people there may be interested. I’m not just pinging you there, but posting this here with a link to my response in case others here are interested as well.
I also need to note that if you’re talking about the global event ban about which you recently wrote Trust & Safety, there seems to be a misunderstanding there. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability. Trust & Safety’s investigation team ("Operations") is one of two that reports to my own direct report, their global lead. Every Trust & Safety office action crosses my desk before it is enacted. I’m not involved in investigations, but I read them all. That was not a Trust & Safety case. Trust & Safety does occasionally issue event bans, but a quick check of my email seems to support my memory that they have not issued any such since January 2019. While I’m obviously not at liberty to discuss the case about which you did approach us, I will note that Trust & Safety maintains the list on direction of the Foundation’s attorneys and may sometimes include names that are part of legal inquiry or where problems have been logged at events hosted by affiliates that have required individuals to be ejected. In terms of its own investigations, Trust & Safety Operations tries to get the balance right between transparency and protection, although this remains a challenge and in early years (2014, 2015), we defaulted to far less communication. But I know of no event ban that the team has ever placed that did not involve talking to witnesses, frequently at the event at the time the instigating incident occurred. However, this page isn't about Trust & Safety either, so I don't want to get too deep into those weeds. :) As I noted in my recent little UCoC FAQ, I'm going to be hosting office hours sometime soon, and I'd love to talk about Trust & Safety's work in general more then. Or, at least, I'm willing. I can't honestly say I love public speaking in any circumstances. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, thanks for the rapid reply and thanks for taking the time for answering on a saturday! When i wrote of T&S, the reason was that a person from the accusing side of the conflict recommended me to contact T&S about the global event ban, which I then did. For NDA reasons, they were not able to provide information (even though i had signed an arbcom NDA). But from me you have received some details via email and I can send more, if you like. And the reason I wrote different things onto this page was that they affect each other and need to be discussed in the big picture. To correct my false assumption about T&S I'll rephrase my text above to: The background of my questions is that I recently communicated with two sides of a harassment claim resulting in a global event ban for one of them and several problems appeared: the accused person was not informed that there was a WMF trial happening. That person was not informed about any details of the claim and did not have an opportunity to defend oneself, but just received a notice that there had been a harassment claim leading to the ban. Many third party wikipedians who know the conflict were not consulted, and I don't know how and if neutral third party wikipedians were consulted. The history of the conflict between the two persons (existing for years) was thus not taken fully into consideration. Not only did it seem to me as an unfair process, but also was the information processed by WMF biased, as only one side was heard and previous events were not considered. The balance between protection on the one hand and transparency, fair processes and good governance on the other hand is imho not met at all. I'm looking forward to meet you soon, and I'm hopeful that we can find a better balance. Oh, and thank you for answering my questions 3, 4 and 5 on the other page. --Ghilt (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Outsource the audit committee

There have been cases, especially in small communities, where admins are the abusers. Such an abuser does not act alone but leads a "wolf pack" and has full support from WMF. Such groups practice mobbing backed up by Wikimedia lobbying, and mobbing sometimes extends to bullying (direct harassment) with no consequences to the abusers. This corrupted hierarchy has enormous negative community health impact. Because "the fish stinks from the head" there is no other way than a) outsourcing the audit committee to WMF independent & user selectable organizations as well as b) make it mandatory for admins who act as community leaders or "bold admins" to pass disturbed personality tests.   ManosHacker talk 15:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added mobbing to the "Abuse of power, privilege, or influence" section.   ManosHacker talk 15:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally I recommend the formation of an WMF independent organization that keeps a full archive of all projects dumps.   ManosHacker talk 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@ManosHacker:, thank you for raising these points. However, it will be very difficult for the many people participating in this draft review if the draft becomes unstable. It’s important that we are all looking at the same text when discussing future changes. Your proposed additions will be added to the content for the Committee’s review, but for now, we need to keep the text on the main page reflective of what the Committee has composed. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@PEarley (WMF):, let's see if the committee finally adds mobbing and treatment to the code of conduct, which you both erased without transferring the content to the talk page.   ManosHacker talk 15:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@PEarley (WMF):, I don't understand why changes to the content would make it more difficult for anyone to review the draft. That's the process that's used for the development of both article content and policy elsewhere, and one that I'm sure one that everyone here is familiar with. The bold-revert-delete cycle is one that has shown incredible power when it comes to creating content and policy with inherent legitimacy, and deviations from this norm need to be justified, in a way that it hasn't been. Could you explain why the process that has been effective elsewhere isn't suitable here? TomDotGov (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Because we cannot be agnostic to the authors of the edits as the ultimate recommendation will be made by the Universal Code of Conduct drafting committee. Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee. If people edit this page like a Wiki page I would need to invest an extraordinary amount of time to dissect the contributions by the committee from yours since at the end of the day your edits are merely suggestions reflecting views that may or may not be shared by the drafting committee. We cannot have a productive discussion with the drafting committee about their draft if the draft doesn't reflect what the drafting committee is thinking. As an ordinary user, I therefore welcome the reverts. To the extent that you suggest that the community collaboratively write the document, this may or may not be a good idea, but it does not accord with the procedure outlined in Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee, which the Wikimedia Foundation has set up at the request of the Board of Trustees. See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/May 2020 - Board of Trustees on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces (stating that "the Foundation shall [d]evelop and introduce a universal code of conduct (UCoC)"; underlining added). — Pajz (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
TomDotGov, Pajz has responded, I see, with the key difference between this and some other local document: the process here is a review of content being written by a committee, working with a mandate from the Board of Trustees. Beyond that, there are inclusivity challenges to consider. The draft is being reviewed and commented upon in multiple languages simultaneously, but not on the same talk page, which would the usual “bold, revert, delete” cycle problematic. It’s one of the challenges of working simultaneously in many languages without prioritizing one over the others. The movement has several processes that work in this more formal, multilingual manner, for instance the Terms of Use updates, and the Movement Strategy recommendations process. Some local processes also evolve differently, such as the English Wikipedia’s Arbitration policy. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Whenever a policy document is being reviewed carefully by many people, it is crucial to keep the original text static. If not, it becomes nigh impossible for people to refer to particular sections reliably, to know if the version one person is commenting on is the same that another is commenting on, etc. As others have said, it also puts way too much work on the committee responsible for editing it. I would think it would be best to simply lock the page right out of the gate. Libcub (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Note, that all our policies have been created, reviewed and cultivated in a completely open manner. Apparently, this approach worked and resulted in a set of rules and regulations that not only universally accepted but also works as intended. ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not the case that all our policies are developed that way. And definitely many are not universally accepted, and at least some do not work as intended. Libcub (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Libcub. Rules and policies are mostly written, interpreted and enforced by admins (more broadly a small group of influential editors). See en:Separation of powers for how democracies work, in comparison. Our governance model results in a lack of checks and balances (accountability), which is well demonstrated by en:WP:ADMINCOND - while there are hundreds of policies and guidelines for editing, the most difficult, responsible and possibly damaging task is regulated by a single page of rules. This results in an unhealthy power imbalance and a great potential for abuse. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 08:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@PEarley (WMF):, it is as simple as starting scientific publications on "Wikimedia Bullying" providing hard evidence, if you omit these, to keep the balance. Please consider taking my comments into account.   ManosHacker talk 07:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@PEarley (WMF):, it seems to me the committee has omitted Workplace bullying / mobbing / moral harassment as well as Culture of fear and Toxic workplace. Am I mistaken?   ManosHacker talk 00:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference to IPs?

The relationship between registered and unregistered users remains, as far as I noticed, absent from the present draft: is this something we should address? A difference is explicitly made to differentiate "new" and "experienced" editors; yet, the "new"-editor category conflates registered and unregistered users. The relationship between experienced registered users and new registered users is to me less conflictive than the relationship between experienced registered users and new unregistered users. My sense is that we should welcome unregistered editors and rely on this universal CC to guarantee that unregistered editors are clearly stated as part of our ecosystem, in the sense that our projects are free for everyone to edit. --Joalpe (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC) (sorry if this was addressed above, but it is just a lot to read -- I am OK with being pointed to an eventual section where this was addressed and contribute there :) --Joalpe (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC))

Consultation end date

The page says "Phase 1 of the community consultations around the Universal Code of Conduct has officially been closed on 6 October 2020." and then "Please note that the last date for community feedback on the original draft is Wednesday October 7, 2020." (it is 7 October here as I am writing this). While the mailing list announcement and consultation main page accurately said 6 October, with the wrong date being the only one present on the draft itself, it was easy to get the wrong impression. Please be more careful in the future. --Tgr (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, what time of day and what timezone? San-Fran time, UTC? Close-of-business, midnight? I’m 3/4 day ahead of west-coast USA: when you’re at work, it’s already tomorrow here. For a supposedly global organisation, a bit more consideration could be shown in that regard. (Mon 23:25 AEST) Pelagic (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic: per midnight deadline, 2359 (AoE) is the recommended standard, and I would expect any deviations from that to have been mentioned. However, I agree that in this circumstance it probably would have been best for the drafting committee to clarify the ambiguity in advance. 𝒬𝔔 23:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Quantocius Quantotius, I didn't know we had that page. Pelagic (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Formal vs. informal

From the update: Respect, politeness, friendliness, formal / informal address. We have learned that some cultures differentiate between friendliness and politeness. Politeness is an behavioral expectation that most WIkimedia communities agree upon, while friendliness could be a behavior that we would like to see Wikimedians engage in, but that no one can enforce.

In languages with a T–V distinction, or other means of grammatically differentiating between polite and friendly, this sentences will probably bring that differentiation to mind. In such languages, there is a formal, "polite" and an informal, "friendly" way of phrasing the same sentence, by using different pronouns, verb forms, honorifics etc. Wikis will usually choose one or the other as their default tone, and neither choice is inherently worse than the other. Hungarian Wikipedia for example uses informal tone, so the above sentence sounds confusing there - the intended meaning is fine, but the word "politeness" brings a specific way of talking to mind which is not practiced at all. --Tgr (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Aim for a minimal scope

I think an important goal for this document should be to strive to be as minimal as possible. Policy is overhead; a global policy is lots of overhead. If contributors are expected to be familiar with it directly, then it puts an extra burden on every editor that they spend time with memorizing it, possibly across language barriers (looking at how other similarly important documents fared, there is no way this will be translated to over two hundred languages). If it will have to be incorporated into local policy, then the burden will be on policy maintainers to consider it every time they make an edit. That is not to be taken lightly, and it should be minimized by restricting this document to issues which really need to be handled globally, and leaving the rest to local policy.

For example, vague, non-actionable positive rules like mentorship or empathy should not be part of this document, IMO. Those are entirely laudable goals, and it is important that we foster such behavior - but a global policy is just not the right tool for them. Communities are entirely capable of providing such advice locally, and if they weren't, there would be better ways to fix that - e.g. providing modifiable templates for key conduct policies on meta, which communities can adopt and adapt. The UCoC at its core is about cross-project enforcement hierarchies and the laws they operate on, and should stick to that, or at least very clearly separate the non-actionable parts, the way legal texts separate the actual rules from preambles and similar inspirational text. --Tgr (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

There should have been a section for thanks! Or maybe there was and I missed it, the ToC is sizable. In any case, thanks for all the work that went into crafting this document (and all the work that will go into processing the massive amounts of feedback)! Having a baseline for good conduct is one of the key challenges of our movement today, and it's an incredibly hard one. Thank you for spending your time on trying to solve it! (That goes extra for the volunteer committee members.) --Tgr (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Revised draft published, Phase 1 closing

Hello all,

The phase one community review period of the development of a Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is complete. The UCoC drafting committee finalized the text from feedback received during a draft review period by Wikimedia communities. The draft after changes is now published, it can be seen at this diff. This week the draft text will be given to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for consideration. Their timeline for review may be determined by their meeting schedule, and we will update as we learn more ourselves.

A second phase that focuses on how the UCoC should be enforced is expected to launch in January. We will provide more detailed information soon.

The Trust & Safety Policy team is extremely grateful to the committee members for their hard work. The drafting process was difficult and time consuming work, and their commitment was impressive. We also want to thank the many, many contributors who spent time reading the draft policy and offered constructive improvements. The Committee took these and implemented a large number of changes, as can been seen in the change log.

During the transition to the second phase of work, this draft is being translated into around 30 languages.

We expect that, if ratified, this draft would form the basis of an evolving Code of Conduct. Some aspects of the text may undergo review during the second phase of work as decisions are made about how to best enforce the UCoC in the large and culturally diverse Wikimedia movement. As we indicated our FAQ, we believe that the content should be reviewed to see how well it is functioning after a year and expect that thereafter whatever global governance systems may be created after the Strategy recommendations are implemented will continue to refine and ensure it serves its purpose.

Personally, I know that conversations of this sort are challenging. We are drawing people together from many countries and many backgrounds and trying to find ways to work harmoniously. This is never going to be quick and easy, and I appreciate all of you who have come together to try in good faith to build a code that works.

To learn more about the UCoC project and how to participate in phase two, watch the main Universal Code of Conduct page and look for announcements. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on the work, I am impressed by the level of improvement. Chico Venancio (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
What the draft UCoC says, it says well. That is clearly the result of discipline, insight, well-designed practices, the meeting of knowledge with heart, and lots of hard work. Thank you very much! --Struthious Bandersnatch 04:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@PEarley (WMF): Thanks for updating the draft. It reads much better (it's still quite long and gives too many examples, in my opinion, but fair enough). However, there is one ammendment which confuses me: [It applies to …] “private, public and semi-public interactions”. What do you mean with private interactions? In several legal systems, private interactions cannot be regulated by non-legal documents like this one. The private sphere which includes all private interacations has to be respected by everyone, only breaches of law within this sphere are relevant. A breach of a CoC of a website is not any such legal issue, at least in some legal systems. Thanks for your explanation in advance. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@DerHexer:, I can't speak for the committee's intention with that phrasing - we'll have to dig into the topic of off-wiki harassment more in Phase 2 to look at where limitations may be. But my guess is that they are saying using email or direct messaging to harass another contributor would not be exempt from risk of sanctions on-wiki. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@PEarley (WMF): Certainly possible in some jurisdictions but not really in mine (and probably in no GDPR-relevant countries). On-wiki sanctioners would not be allowed to get (or process) information about email conversations because this would be considered a breach of privacy. Only executive forces like police, prosecution, etc. could sanction that. This is handled in the German NPA page (w:de:Wikipedia:Keine persönlichen Angriffe) as: “Auf das Verhalten außerhalb der Wikipedia haben wir in der Wikipedia keinen Einfluss. […]”. In this regard (i.e. private communications) the UCoC would have no effect on editors based in my jurisdiction or would even lead to the opposite result (legal complaints about privacy breaches). Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@DerHexer:, the word private was added to the draft on a community request, I believe from further up here. It seems the committee agreed with the sentiment that harassment is not something that should be allowed in non-public interactions. But this is definitely something that will have to be discussed and looked at in detail during phase 2, especially in the light of different legislations. Thank you for pointing this out! --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Certainly, this is not something that should be allowed in non-public interactions. But I still think that this cannot be covered by a UCoC because it cannot be within its scope. Therefore, I don't consider this to be legally valid in my jurisdiction. I look forward to the thoughts on that in phase 2. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Darn it, I had a great idea for a suggestion. It never occurred to me to make it! The draft does look much better now. Can't wait to see the next round. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You said that you made changes. According to the change log, you struck out "always" from the AGF, but the "always" is still there. Was the "always" part presented to the BoT yet? George Ho (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi George Ho, thank you for reading so carefully! You are absolutely correct, the committee struck out always in their final draft, which was presented to the board. The old version mistakenly sneaked in again when this draft was wikified it seems, thank you for catching it! I will correct the error to reflect the version the committee approved. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Have you yet double-checked the onscreen draft for any other errors? --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did - I hope reading and rereading did not make me completely confused! I am deeply sorry this mistake happened and truly hope the version onwiki now is correct. Thanks again for catching that error! --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I am translating the /Draft review, and would you kindly fix an orphaned link at "link: of different backgrounds" please. Or am I missing something? Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) Copied exact phrasing. 03:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC) / 02:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)