Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Conflicts related with Ancient Greek, LPP policy and Incubator stuffs

This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Liuxinyu970226

Description of the problem - (Liuxinyu970226)

Your honour, so let me tell you that what I've found on this topic for several decades.

Currently, the Language proposal policy (hereafter the LPP) says

“

Ancient or historical languages

Only Wikisource wikis in ancient or historical languages are accepted, because resources in such languages continue to be important to the world, even in the absence of native, living speakers of those languages. Where possible, such languages should be bundled with the modern equivalent Wikisource project (such as Old English with English), though that is not required.

”

This means that, to match such a policy explaination, no such languages are currently allowed on Incubator for project testing (just try [1], are you able to create contents titled with Foo under Middle Dutch (dum)?) Note that as I mentioned at policy talk page last month, SIL currently no longer having any languages classified as ancient, but still extinct and historical.

However, in practice, there are certain such languages where really still have speakers, Ancient Greek is just an example under "historical" umbrella as per langcom talk page respond (not sure when it will be archived as still no response). One example for the "extinct" could be Jewish Babylonian Aramaic due to a somewhat successful appeal of deletion request (later the deleted contents were restored for Wp/tmr, but not for Wy/tmr), and later my deletion request regarding Taivoan one was rejected due to quite controversial, but didn't mention that why it's "controversial".

Due to recent development of situations, I'm afraid that these matters won't be able to handle without potential U4C committee's involves. There may be more peoples being involved for these matters, but for "Parties" fields above, I have to only mention 4 most active ones above.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Liuxinyu970226)

On Meta-Wiki

• Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages and their subpages
• Requests for comment/Language proposal policy
• Requests for comment/Policy on creating new Wikiprojects language versions
• Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Greek 4
• Talk:Requests_for_new_languages/Archives/2006-11#Proposal_for_criteria_in_granting_requests_for_new_languages

On Incubator

• incubator:Incubator:Community_Portal/Archive/2009#Localisation_reqs_for_Coptic_Wikisource
• Incubator:Incubator:Community_Portal/Archive/2017#RfC_on_incubating_minor_language_Wikipedias_in_Taiwan
• incubator:Incubator:Community_Portal/Archive/2021#Ancient_language_issue

On mailing list

• Request to revist Ancient Language policy, 3 September 2021

Suggested solutions - (Liuxinyu970226)

1. Clarify that whether they shall be allowed for testing or not on Incubator
2. Allow people to re-start a RFC, together with langcom members, to make an amendment to the LPP policy, so that some (but really not all) certain extinct and/or historical languages, that are really having speakers (despite L1 or L2), be allowed for future language versions of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, ...
3. If 2nd passed, allow people to re-submit new requests for such rejected languages due to conflict of concept understanding, and, once further possible, allow eligibility and approval of them, so that e.g. https://grc.wikipedia.org/ may be available for their speakers. (in this case, one example that got eligibility despite being an extinct is Coptic)

Amire80

Previous attempts at a solution - Amire80

This isn't anywhere near something that is related to the Universal Code of Conduct. I haven't seen any evidence of "Abuse of power, privilege, or influence". Myself, and, as far as I can tell, other Language committee members, have been trying our best to practice the policies as they are written—sensibly, courteously, and, as far as it is possible in an informal, volunteer-driven project, professionally. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - Amire80

Even though there are good reasons for the way the current Language proposal policy is written and practiced, it is not permanently set in stone. It changed several times in the past, and it can change again. There were past RFCs about these topics, and I am not opposed to opening new ones. Universal Code of Conduct doesn't look like the appropriate context for that, however. I'm not saying it because I'm afraid of the results, but because it is just really completely irrelevant. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Anaxicrates

Previous attempts at a solution - Anaxicrates

Respected Sirs and Madams,
I was invited by Liuxinyu970226 to comment. Even if a clear majority in numbers and, in my opinion, also in strength of arguments emerged in favour of authorizing an Ancient Greek Wikipedia in 2024 (see also this), I do not believe that the dismissal of such a request by LangCom constituted indeed an “abuse of power”. As far as I can see, LangCom has full powers over such matters, without having to respect the majority consensus of the community. It is true that the statute of LangCom requires them to “consider users’ necessities as the primary source for policy”, but in practice they are free to judge themselves what users’ necessities are. Regarding the statutory provision that “the committee is especially interested in hearing those who proposed a new wiki in the past and got refused”, Liuxinyu970226 might have interpreted the fact that LangCom did not yet answer to my questions and remarks from a month ago as a sign of indifference or lack of interest. On the contrary, I’m confident they are simply taking all the time needed to ponder the matter scrupulously and to give a thoughtful response.
Indeed, I am trying to solve the issue by making LangCom more knowledgeable regarding Classical Greek (see 1 and 2), trusting that this will modify their initial bias against the project.

Suggested solutions - Anaxicrates

A possible solution I offer is rather straightforward: classical languages which have a living community of speakers (even if just L2, as in the case of Ancient Greek), should not be forbidden in principle to develop their own Wikimedia projects. In my opinion, the current Language proposal policy is irrational in that it makes a treatment distinction between constructed languages and classical languages, which are timeless, as universal neologisms such as “airplane” (ἀερόπλανος), “astronaut” (ἀστροναύτης) and “cybernetics” (κυβερνητική) demonstrate. The fact that UNESCO has recently recognized the dignity of Classical Greek, proposing to institute a Greek Language Day (a honour shared with just 8 other languages), for its “35 centuries of written tradition, [its] highly elaborated structure as a language (vocabulary, grammar and syntax), [its] use by unparalleled historical figures of literature, poetry, theatre, philosophy, politics and science, such as Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Aeschylus, Thucydides, Hippocrates, Archimedes, [its standing as] an inexhaustible source of international scientific terminology, [this being] an internationally recognized feature of Greek”, etc. is, in my opinion, a step forward in this direction.
Thanks for your attention.

Danvintius Bookix

Suggested solutions - Danvintius Bookix

• I have nothing to say about this. I think this is not the place to discuss it. --Danvintius Bookix (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

• Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
• Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
• Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
• All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (GZWDer)

In my memory, what is (or at least was, when StevenJ81 was still active then) the de facto practice is even if language proposal policy does not (currently) permit new non-Wikisource projects in ancient languages, tests (for projects other than Wikinews) can still be lived in Incubator; they are not deleted solely because of the language is extinct, but user can still propose deletion of them for e.g. quality problem.--GZWDer (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

(by the way, not closely related to the case) Note my position (and just in my opinion) of Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages - i.e. what LPP should be if revised - is "projects in language without native speakers can be approved in a case-by-case basis". I will never endorse proposals that have special treatments for any individual languages.--GZWDer (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

@User:Liuxinyu970226 can you please point out which parts of UCoC have been violated in your opinion? --Civvì (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence, I think. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 how is it an abuse of power, privilege, or influence for a committee to set parameters for how it makes decisions with-in its remit? I'm personally frustrated and upsert by the way AffCom choose to change its criteria and retroactively apply that new criteria to applications it had failed to process in a timely manner. But I don't think it was an abuse of power, privilege, or influence for them to do so because the UCoC defines that as "Abuse occurs when someone in a real or perceived position of power, privilege, or influence engages in disrespectful, cruel, and/or violent behaviour towards other people. In Wikimedia environments". Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

Decline votes

• I don't think that the described issue is related to UCoC. --Civvì (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• This is out of our scope, in my opinion. --Ghilt (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• As I noted above, I think a committee is empowered to make decisions with in its scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Appears out of scope for us. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't see anything that violates UCoC, I think there is a misunderstanding about the concept of "abuse of power" because it does not apply to this situation. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• We're primarily concerned with UCoC enforcement. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Out of scope. Luke081515 12:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

• Acknowledging that this request has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• The case can't get accepted by the U4C since the majority of it's members declined it. Hence closing this case as declined. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 19:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)