Jump to content

Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Project

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Project.

  Please remember to:

  Discussion navigation:

Additional Community Consultation for some sections of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee(U4C) Charter Draft[edit]

Following the community consultation period on the U4C Charter draft, the U4CBC reconvened to make relevant edits to the draft text based on community feedback. The Committee has revised some sections of the text and are requesting for additional review and feedback from the community. The U4C specifically requests for feedback/input on the following points:

  • Membership
    • The U4BC is proposing 50% of U4C membership is reserved for regional distribution and the remaining 50% for the community at large.
  • U4C Election
    • The U4CBC is proposing that each election candidate gets a 60% or higher majority of votes to be selected.

Kindly reply below with feedback, thoughts or concerns. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJones (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I prefer the old membership criteria of two representatives per region. It offered stronger protection against ethnic or racial bias.
But if you must make only half of all U4C members into regional representatives, I suggest the following. Each non-regional candidate should be required to publicly disclose the wiki they specialize in editing, which can be viewed from their global account. For simplicity's sake, let's call this their primary wiki. Each wiki (like each region) has its own culture. To prevent any wiki from dominating the U4C, you should set an upper limit of two non-regional U4C members from the same primary wiki. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Has something been done to close the gendergap? Do editors in general find that important? Keep up! VanArtevelde (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vote pour la suppression d'un sujet[edit]

Bonjour J'aimerais savoir sur quels critères se base le vote pour une suppression d'un contenu (sujet de recherche, article pertinent,...) Merci Mzadni (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mzadni, Are you referring to content in the the Universal Code of Conduct or content on Wikipedia in general? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Bonjour, Faites-vous référence au contenu du Code universel de conduite ou au contenu de Wikipédia en général ? Je m'excuse pour toute erreur de traduction. Meilleur, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Slight differences in translations in dates and content[edit]

In the timeline of the German version the 7. August – 6. September 2023 Community-Reviewrunde is still ongoing on, and in the English translation for I believe the same seems to be

August 28–September 22, 2023 Community review round of the draft U4C charter

and is also still mentioned as ongoing.

If one can help to solve the mystery I'd be glad and I am also willing to help out with translations if someone shows me how to do it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

lf one can help 2001:1C00:305:E700:FAA0:2ED1:969:24A1 11:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Loophole in U4C Charter[edit]


"A good faith disagreement over how to interpret the UCoC is not enough to determine that a high-level decision making body has systematically failed to enforce the code."

That's a dangerous loophole. What if people interpret the UCOC in bad faith but pretend to do so in good faith? How are you going to prove they were acting in bad faith? If you can't get rid of the provision quoted above, I would suggest amending it as follows:

A good faith disagreement over how to interpret the UCoC is not enough to determine that a high-level decision making body has systematically failed to enforce the code. However, the following interpretations of the UCoC will not be considered good faith:

  • Denying the existence of provisions written in the UCoC (e.g. Denying that the UCoC prohibits harassment)
  • Reinterpreting pre-defined words or phrases in the UCoC (e.g. Reinterpreting "harassment" to mean only sexual harassment)

Tagging @Olugold and @Nitesh Gill of the Building Committee, @RamzyM (WMF), and @AJones (WMF). Adrianmn1110 (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note -- let me relay it to the relevant team member. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cheers. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for this feedback. Olugold (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reading it. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Adrianmn1110 thanks for taking the time to leave this feedback. For me, this whole thing works if we elect good people to the U4C and fails if we don't. If we have good people on the U4C, I think leaving it to them to decide if something is a good faith disagreement or not is better than trying to define it. I also think trying to define things, especially with specific examples, can make it easier (especially if we're dealing with translations) to say that XYZ thing isn't the same as ZYX where a more broad description would let the U4C say "those are the same". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Barkeep49: Thanks for reading the feedback. I disagree that my suggestion constitutes a strict definition. It's more like a list of interpretations of the UCoC that shouldn't be considered good faith, and the U4C would be free to include other interpretations in that list. If you're concerned about narrow definitions creating further loopholes, you can add the phrase "but not limited to".

A good faith disagreement over how to interpret the UCoC is not enough to determine that a high-level decision making body has systematically failed to enforce the code. Interpretations of the UCoC that will not be considered good faith include, but are not limited to:

  • Denying the existence of provisions written in the UCoC
  • Reinterpreting pre-defined words or phrases in the UCoC
Would that alleviate your concerns? In my opinion, the first example (denying the existence of provisions) is more important than the second one (reinterpreting pre-defined words or phrases). Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I get what you're saying and I agree those would likely be bad faith reasons. I worry that if there are other examples the "not limited to" won't be enough to prevent wikilawyering. But most importantly, if we can't trust the UCoC members to agree with us that those are not good faith disagreement then we're in bad shape and nothing we're writing would change that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I know it's too late to change the Charter, but I'm just itching to respond anyway. You stated that examples (of bad-faith interpretations of the UCoC) may lead to more wikilawyering, but I'm not sure it would. Whatever argument someone makes while examples exist, they could also make while examples don't exist. Even if what you stated were true, examples would let anyone know, unambiguously, which interpretations of the UCoC will not be considered good faith.
You said UCoC enforcement would fail if U4C members can't agree that some interpretations are made in bad faith, and therefore we don't need to set examples of bad-faith interpretations of the UCoC. That argument is flawed because, even if your premises were true, that doesn't mean you shouldn't help the U4C by clarifying certain things. Let's use an analogy: Should the US Congress stop trying to write clear laws because the legal system would fail without good judges anyway? (Again, I'm aware that the Charter won't be changed. Any reply from me is made only because I want it to be made.) Adrianmn1110 (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also my understanding is that no language can be changed right now because the draft is currently being translated? Is that correct RamzyM (WMF)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Our preference now is to keep the draft version as stable as possible leading toward the vote, since it is being translated into several languages. Patrick can speak more to this, but essentially the ratification vote will also include an option for voters to provide comments and/or concerns about the language of the draft charter (just like we had for the two ratification votes of the Enforcement Guidelines); more on that at the information page. I imagine that this feedback would be best placed there, alongside your vote. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Barkeep49, Ramzy's right - translators are currently working in quite a few languages. It would be best to keep the English text stable at this point. And yes, the ballot for the Charter vote will include a text area to register concerns with the current wording, the SecurePoll setup is very similar to the 2022 vote on the Enforcement Guidelines. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

What could or would the UCOC do about the culture of toxicity on English Wikipedia?[edit]


Does the UCOC have any bearing on the contents of the above discussion?

Note that of the participants, Bishonen and Cullen328 are highly respected Administrators in the English Wikipedia community.

Note also that if you're experiencing difficulties even reading that discussion because it is too burdensome to load on many devices, the English Wikipedia community is well aware of that issue and has chosen to do nothing about it.

To me, and surely anyone else, this section is a clear sign to newcomers and outsiders that there isn't really a very healthy culture in that flagship community, and rather than carrying any sense of shame or embarrassment for this, they are happy with it. They celebrate it even. An open secret.

It genuinely angers me to see people being so blatant in their disregard of everything I understood Wikipedia stood for, and knowing there is apparently nothing that anyone who lacks not just an equal but superior standing to those Administrators within that community, can do about it.

I fear that it won't be too long before the vast gulf between what the Foundation claims is the culture of its projects and what the lived experience is, will lead to not just harassment of the perceived guilty parties, but physical violence. It's basic human nature. That or the communities will just wither and die for lack of willing participants.

I believe the Foundation has both a legal and moral duty to prevent this at the source. Is the UCOC the instrument to do that? If not, why not?

Bringer Of News And Things (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bringer Of News And Things: You may be interested in these reports. According to the Enforcement Guidelines, the UCoC was created as a last line of defense against misbehaving people who can't be handled by their own local communities. It's impossible to know how well the U4C will enforce the UCoC, but the Code itself could be used to resolve the issues you brought up. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

For anyone also interested in the results of the voting on the charter[edit]

Here the link to the results of the voting. Couldn't find it posted anywhere I checked near the UCoC and could not edit the page, so I thought I at least add a link to the results at the talk page of the UCoC. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Updated committee list[edit]

I note that I'm still listed as a member of this committee, but I stepped down following the ratification vote. Can the page be updated @RamzyM (WMF)? Thanks Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, happy to update it. Thanks for letting me know :) RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Outdated History section[edit]

Since the main page is now protected, can someone who's autoconfirmed please update the History section? It's looking a bit outdated. The Charter has already been ratified, and the U4C candidates are now answering questions from voters. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, Adrianmn1110, I'll relay this to the team. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply