Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Vote results/Voter comments

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Universal Code of Conduct

Specific Improvements to the UCoC Charter


The principle of the right to be heard (audiatur et altera pars) is not sufficiently reflected in the U4C Charter.

The minimum age should be reduced from 18 to 16 years - in the current form, it unnecessarily excludes a large part of the active.

Overall this is good, but there are a few ambiguities that should be resolved: 4.3.2 "...Votes will be cast by community members with > 60% or > 66% approval" There are two stated thresholds: which one is applicable? 3.4 "The U4C can seat with any number of members, but no decision or vote can be taken by the Committee unless the quorum of 50% (8 members) of the voting members (16 members) is attained" Does this mean an absolute majority is always required in votes, or is it a requirement for a quorum to merely be present? Are only active members counted? What if the vote is a tie?

  • The U4C is supposed to combat abuses of power, so not allowing candidates that have been blocked in the past year seems somewhat.. ironic? *I'd like to know more about the up to 2 WMF members, whether their roles will be any different, why they are there, etc. evidence based on private communications MUST be kept private unless there is consent from all parties to make it public. I see no reason why it shouldn't be admissible as evidence, but it should be treated as private. The text as currently written makes it appear to prefer releasing private communications publicly without prior consent. 2.3: This means all regional candidates are always elected together in one year? Would it not make more sense to do 4 regional/4 community each year? 4.3.2 Voting: is it 60% or 66%? This needs to be clear.

  • 2.1: A singular block on a singular wiki should not be enough to prevent a candidate for standing. It makes it too easy for an individual admin, especially on a smaller wiki, to block candidates they do not agree with. * 2.2 This needs to clarify how the elections work for candidates who do not wish to publicly disclose where in the world they are located. E.g. are those two elections completely separate? * 3.5 Why does a charter "suggest" something? * 4.3.2 "with > 60% or > 66% approval" - Which one is it? Does the U4C get to decide that? * 5 "Home wiki" needs a clear definition, which preferrably is not just the account creation wiki that CentralAuth indicates.

Abstaining for now. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Charter#Copy_edits_needed_to_unreadable_sentence We are being asked to vote on a draft charter that has not had clear errors corrected. It's frankly embarrassing.

There are some typos: 1.) In section 1.3, the reference on initial terms should be to 2.3, not 3.2. 2.) There is a missing space in section 3: "scope.There" 3.) There is an inappropriately capitalized "In" in the last sentence of section 5.

This charter should be able to remove the policies, guides and essays that are approved in local wikis by the local community and are in conflict or contradiction with the main policies of Wikimania Foundation and warn that local wiki and its administrators about its approval. .

This is about an international arbitration / judging body, or enforcement body with judging authorisation, c.q. judging over judgemaking. The rules for decisionmaking should be clear, and at best be in line with international legal standards. In this set of rules unfortunately some essentials are missing. There are for instance no rules on decison making within the Committee: no rules for the voting process, no rules on the rules that the Committee should apply when making decisions in disputes, no rules that decisons in disputes should be based on valid legal argumentation.

1.One candidate per region is not fair representation of population (even with the addition of at-large members). This is the exact same problem as with the US Senate and Electoral College. Members should only be at-large. 2.The foundation should have no involvement, not even selecting two non-voting members. 3.How this committee is not essentially a behavior/conduct-only global arbcom is not mentioned at all. 4.The powers of the committee are not at all delineated clearly. Will it have the power to order a global ban? How would that conflict with local arbcoms and thus how will that be reconciled with the limitations on jurisdiction? 5.The section on "admissibility of appeals" is NOT about admissibility. "Appeals by blocked, banned, or similarly restricted individual users are usually conducted by email. " does not specify what would be the exception to "usually", nor when an appeal is allowed or not. This is horribly vague and needs clarification. 6.There must be policy limitations on the rights that the committee can grant itself. It should not have such absolute power to grant such rights as that can be easily abused. 7.There should be an "impeachment" process by which a member can be removed from office by the community for misconduct. Relying purely on office actions for such a check on power is not sufficient. 8.How will this committee's jurisdiction be separate from that of the ombuds commission? 9.The messages advertising this vote are much too vague about why it is important to vote on this and read it, and turnout will thus be depressed. 10.No provision for tiebreaking exists. The committee should have an odd number of seats for this reason.

A takeover is too easy. Limiting the attendance threshold to 50% allows a small minority to take over the UCCCC. Much more security for misuse of powers required.

Wikipedia and all the WMF projects have a high degree of complexity. At least some of it is necessary, but we should be very careful to add more complexity. There may be good additions, or unnecessary additions. I am ok with trying new things, but until they are proven to work well and be worth it, they should come with an expiration date. And that is what I think is missing. There are good reasons for this charter and for a universal code of conduct, but we don't know if they will be effective, or if they will have unintended bad consequences. They may make the WMF projects even more of a byzantine structure. So it should come with an expiration date. Maybe five years from its enactment. At which point, it would automatically cease to exist, unless Wikipedians vote to extend its life.

The document need a bit more honing: 1.4. Conflict of Interest: I don't see why employees and contractors can't be member of the U4C. We would lose some realy good candidates for the committee. 2.1. Member Eligibility "sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (NDA) with the Wikimedia Foundation once they are elected." I recommend signing before the election starts. Common practice in steward elections. 2.5. Voting Process "The candidate must have 60% or higher of votes" I see no need to exclude candidates with at least 50% but less then 60 %. 3.2. Conduct of U4C members "Any U4C member [..] may be suspended or removed by public committee resolution. This public committee resolution must be supported by two-thirds of all U4C members, excluding the following from the voting process: [...] Any U4C member who does not respond within 30 days to any attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of written communication." What exactly does the last part mean? Is Wikimail+Discussion page enough? Or also a physical letter? Do you have to try SMS, whatsapp etc? 4.2.1. Jurisdiction "Except in instances of systemic failures, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Global Council, Elections Committee, Technical Code of Conduct committee, stewards), warranting effective self-governance." 1. Why a special rule for the en-wp Arbcom? There is no other NDA-signed arbcom. This would have two consequences: -a) nobody can appeal against decisions of the en-wp arbcom. I don't do much over there and don't really care, but as far as I know, en-arcom sometimes (un-)blocks accounts without any public discussion. It would be the en-arbcom that needs more supervision, but I don't care. -b) on all other projects, who have long public arbcom cases, the U4C would have the opportunity to overturn decisions. Which effectively means that everyone who is arbcom-blocked can appeal to the U4C for even more "community amusement". Not a good idea. I know several long and difficult arbcom-cases where the arbs had to decide between several bad options. No need to go on with those discussions at the U4C. In case of systematic failure (of an arbcom), OK let them appeal to U4C, but not after a "regular" failure. BTW, if an arbcom cannnot handle a certain problem, because it has no means for non-public conflict resolution, that might be considered systematic failure. But just not having signed the Foundation's NDA is no reason to exclude those arbcoms BTW2: Requests to the U4C are supposed to be public as long as there are no reasons for handling it via mail. So why exclude arbcoms who work accordingly (and therefore have no need to sign the NDA)? BTW3: What exactly is an NDA-signed Arbcom? Is it enough if every member has sigened it (by chance) or is it a requirement that always the whole committee has signed it by policy? 2. The stewards are no decision-making body. They are rather a group of individuals only responsible for their own actions. Anyways they are included, but what are the consequences? If one steward locks me, I then cannot appeal to the U4C? Or only if all of the stews lock me? The first option might be a good idea, as I already can appeal to another steward, but listing stews together with those committees is weird.

do not believe that "mandatory trainings" trainings should be mandatory if final interpretation is needed it should go to meta as a request for comment instead of a decision from the committee, in situations where local and global disagrees Regional Distribution in elections should be based of homewiki instead of region blocked on any Wikimedia project should be removed – leave it to the voters

I do not support the UCoC CC having the ability to grant unlimited user rights to its members (as mentioned in §3.7) when there is no other body with a clear mandate to check abuses of this power.

I have reservations about section 2.2.1. The number of members is small and does not take into account the different cultures of nations. Certain behavior in one country can be taken in another country as inappropriate. Each language version should have one representative in the committee.

Never of a mission presents in the non -defined letter. In particular, this is the case of the Nocion of "Systemic Failure" that it is 12 copes in the text (!!) and that is central to a paragraph. Pus generally, the organization dependent on the letter seems to be that of a supplementary unusable comitat and already pron of unused posts paid by the depth.

I oppose this draft because it is inadequate to serve as a governing document for the committee. It is ambiguous and incomplete, especially in the significant area of elections. Specifically, regional elections are stated that they "will be elected by regional distribution". That suggests that only those voters within a region can vote for the particular regional representative for that region. Yet in another place it says voters are able to vote for candidates from all regions, which suggests that anyone can vote all representatives from each and every region with no restrictions. This seems to be a contradiction and needs clarification. If Regional Representatives can be voted on by at-large voters then they are very little different from At-large Representatives (except that they have designated a region to run for). Also, how would voters be assigned to Regions because only candidates have to declare a home wiki and a home region. Another problem is that the description given in the Glossary, it says that representatives from any particular (home) wiki must be limited to at most two among all seats. There needs to be a way of determining who wins when there's a conflict with that rule among the apparent winning candidates: Which candidates are to be denied taking a seat among the conflicting "winners"? This must be made clear before any election is held.

I am happy to support this. It would be nice if it would be expanded and adapted even further. Nevertheless, I would like a membership from the age of 16, because the Charter should also represent the Wikipedia and younger people should also be taken on board.

Kindly define "systemic failure". If there is a complaint against UCoC coordinating committee or its decision, where should an individual go? With 1 representative per region and various editing communities in a region with their own consensus-based rules, can that representative really represent the region? Thank you :)

I hope that the U4C will emphasize the application of the universal code of conduct by group leaders and project leaders. Whether he ensures the knowledge of this code by members of the affiliated groups or not. To do this, I propose that he holds surveys with volunteers to collect information related to the application of this CCU. Let him organize training workshops with leaders and project leaders on the importance of his application. The loyalty of volunteers within groups is a real problem, in part because the CCU is just read but not applied. Some have no idea of its existence.

Note: I posted a version of these comments on the Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter page before voting. I didn't know this means of commenting was available. 1) It is not specified whether U4C decisions are to be made by simple majority of members present, of all members, or by some other supermajority or consensus process. Something so fundamental to the function of such a powerful body should not be implied. The U4C will be the final arbiter of the most important cases, and we can't have them making decisions about our rights and privileges by making assumptions. > I recommend section of the charter state explicitly that all decisions shall be based on a simple majority of members present. 2) The U4C membership is an even number (16), inviting tie votes, with no specified process for dealing with tie votes. > I recommend section 2.2.2 of the charter state that seven representatives from the Community at large will be elected. > I recommend section of the charter state that in the case of a tie vote of the U4C, no action will be taken. 3) There is no provision indicating which members voted for or against any decision. I think their votes should be on the public record (for accountability and to inform voters during re-election). > I recommend section of the charter state the votes of each individual member of the U4C, or the absence or abstention thereof, in every reported decision. 4) I think opinions and explanations of members who vote against decisions that have been approved by the U4C would help us understand how they interpret the UCoC. > I recommend section of the charter state that members who vote against a decision that has passed by a majority vote of the U4C should have the option to include an explanation of their dissent in the reported decision. The lack of these provisions is a lack of transparency, which is exactly the opposite of the intentions of those who drafted it. It is also an opportunity for power struggles, as the authority for decision-making is not specified (majority, supermajority, consensus, etc.). I think these most basic issues need to be addressed now, before this charter is ratified. I also think the process for drafting this charter and conducting this ballot was flawed. I received notice of this proposed charter by email on January 29, giving me 4 days to review it and vote. I've mentioned four issues I have with the proposed charter, but it seems I missed the opportunity to provide input already (if that opportunity actually was available to me), even though I just got the notice yesterday, and I believe I am commenting in a timely manner. All Wikimedians should have a chance to review such a fundamental document during its drafting, when input can be meaningful. That's when comments should be solicited, not 4 days before the voting deadline (and ten days after voting has begun). As things stand, people like me are being asked by email to vote on something fundamental without having been asked in the same way to participate in its development. That means there is a built-in ignorance in the voting population. I accept the possibility that there might have been some other form of notice here in Wikimedia, and maybe I missed it. If so, I doubt I'm the only one. But the call to vote came by email. Email reaches a broad audience, even people like me who spend most of our time on our home Wikis and don't see notices here. Again, that guarantees a certain amount of built-in ignorance among people who vote on this issue.

The size of the committee seems too big.

Mal written charter (many elements are not defined, certain passages seem to contradict themselves), arbitrary or unnecessarily complex processes, lack of internal transparency, insufficient resources compared to the displayed ambition ... In short, if the idea of Base of the UCOC was legitimate, with such a text, its implementation promises to be more generating problems than solutions.

This is difficult to describe but here goes. In general I'm very much in favor of a Universal Code of Conduct. But there is a problem exemplified as follows: recent court cases in the United States have demonstrated when "fair use" of text snippets and thumbnails is transformative. Such transformations when present change "fair use" to "free use". Exemption doctrine policies such as for Wikipedia and Wikiversity, for example, over ride the conversion of "fair use" to "free use". In essence a mix occurs in which Fair Use Law is intermingled with Copyright Law. If something is "free use" under Fair Use Law it can be labelled non-fairuse or non-freeuse per incapable copyright information usually due to changes in the source of texts or images. Conforming to a Universal Code of Conduct has not been violated by transformative acts producing transformative snippets or thumbnails but actions labeling such as incapable copyright information are a violation yet these occur. Conduct of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee thus is in a conflicting situation.

There is a small mistake in the statute formulation: in 4.3.1

Problem with Section 2.1: "blocks" can be for anything, even automatic - and there is no appeals for someone that was blocked, and no longer is, as the appeal is only to those "who are blocked" Probelm with section 4.3.2 - "Votes will be cast by community members with > 60% or > 66% approval" which is it 60 or 66?

Special elections should be called for all vacancies at all times.

A more explicit commitment to a lightweight update process seems important, given how hard it was to make minor corrections and clarifications over the past few months.

I voted "No" because the charter of the U4C is vague in its language. For example, it is unclear what to do if I don't like the decision of the UCoC. Yes, there is an appeals process, but it did not mention a final arbiter who is not from the U4C. With no oversight or checks and balances, U4C will be very powerful and may be prone to abuse. Another unclear language is systemic failure. The charter did not detail the criteria to determine if a particular community or group has a systemic failure. This kind of unclear language is dangerous because the U4C may do everything to intervene in the editing community as it pleases. I also believe the U4C Charter is too bureaucratic. It will add another layer to the hierarchical structure, contrasting the spirit of Wikipedia, which is not a bureaucracy. As the U4C will divide itself into huge regions and not in a particular community, there is also no guarantee that members of the U4C will understand a specific community culture, let alone particular cases of UCoC violation.

What about people under 18? Do they really have to be excluded from continuing their career? In turn, when it comes to law, it is different all over the world and the 18 -year limit is not precise.

Might want to allow local ArbComs etc. to set their own rules regarding 1.3 (for example, enwiki ACERULES) and we should have a kind of "global ArbCom" for UCoC.

I am unhappy of the phrasing in Section 3.1 regarding how members are selected.

I suggest removing "standard" from "Decisions are written in clear, concise standard English" ( since the term "standard English" usually refers to a variety of English designated as standard by a country, such as Scottish English in Scotland. See w:Standard English. In this case, I think "clear, concise English" is sufficient.

(minor) correction needed at Sec 1.3 Membership ? > "see 3.2" should read "2.3" ?

- UCoC itself is too vague to be reasonably enforced. - Enforcement guidelines are too vague to be reasonably enforced. - "Meet any other eligibility requirements determined during the election process" is too vague. By who? Seems like the committee is allowed to blacklist anyone they don't like. - For vacancies, the committee is being allowed to pick less-supported candidates over more-supported candidates. - No real restrictions on private hearings. - Committee is allowed to make arbitrary rules restricting participation in hearings. - No restrictions on temporary injunctions.

As in the enforcement guidelines I am unhappy with the introduction of "mandatory training". This is unheard of in our projects and I see conflicts with some values. And I am not convinced, that "will" is the best wording for the regional distribution. I prefer "shall" to compensate for the vastly different participation in the communities. It is necessary to strife for distributed participation, but I don't think its wise to make it a precondition to a working committee. Third: If any request for recusal will be voted on without the named members, a Denial of Service attac is at least theoretically possible.

- member eligibility - I feel that opening the possibility of integrating people who have been blocked from projects ou banned from events doesn’t do any good for the credibility of the Committee, and also, the timeframe for an active ban (1 year) seems short. - it should be considered quotas, at least for gender, either female as other gender identities. - admissibility of evidence - "Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the U4C. » - a lot of harassment is being done on telegram groups, for instance; introducing this U4C consent need for admission increases bureaucracy and weakens the trust in the process, in my pov.

The standard itself does not clearly define the corresponding procedures, attributes, and external communities, etc. The supervision & accountability arrangement should be enjoyed, and the degree of supervision of the actual operation of the mechanism must be fully considered. That is, it may be affected by unfairness. It must be clearly agreed that the second and third backup operating mechanisms must be clearly agreed to replace the fault of the first establishment mechanism. At the same time, it should be fully stated that when the situation is in an emergency, that is, the situation of the situation appears, that is, the situation of the situation appears. When the problem of behavior activities is completely exposed, when the mechanism and the committee cannot respond to the needs of the community, they can replace the response operation and relieve the second and third reserve operation procedures of the situation. Community members can execute procedures such as appeal and reporting, and they should also have more extensive and detailed arrangements, and must not be fully commissioned to decide community behavior in small circle members or opaque members of the circle. It is necessary to stipulate that the technical independence records the archive mechanism procedure, avoiding the independence of the committee or the non -transparent administration of the small circle, and the black box politics. It is necessary to set up a step -by -step arbitration and supervision mechanism to prevent small circle of dictatorship procedures and justice.

The draft is supported by an intolerant assertiveness with a taste of sovereignty and an identity policy spirit that is incompatible with western tolerance. There are no arbitration points such as an independent ombuds system. In its form, this design must be rejected.

As with any complicated enterprise, providing some real life illustrations of how the system works under the UCoCCC would make the whole matter easier to understand and to appreciate, as well.

Based on my experience as a regular contributor, I hope there will be real emphasis on point '3.2 Conduct of U4C Members'. Indeed, it is frequent to receive comments from Overseers which are brutal, with no basic salutations nor thanks, just 'slamming' their comments or critics over the initial contributor. In short, one hopes that basic civility, courtesy, positiveness and helpfulness will be the rule, which has not been the case for years.

I believe the Sections and/ or sub-sections are organised poorly. it would be be better, if the order are changed as under. It will help to understand the Charter better. 1. Under the heading Purpose and Scope(1), Membership (1.3) should be removed Sub section to include Jurisdiction and Proceedings 2. This section should be about Procedures 3. Membership (1.3) should have a new heading. Conduct of U4C members (3.2) should come under Membership. The Section Elections and Terms(2) should come here as its sub-Section.

Dear Wikipedia community. This Charter fails to provide sufficient transparency requirements. “Whenever possible,” and “with or without explanation,”are not strong enough when it comes to being transparent on their actions. Those must be changed to be stronger, or we risk a shadow docket.

3.4. Quorum The 50% threshold is unfortunate, as it permits two distinction proposals to each reach sufficient support. This leaves it up to interpretation which 50% should get their way. Instead, a majority ought to be required.

Meet any other eligibility requirements determined during the election process. and "Voter eligibility will be decided by the Elections Committee." - I don't know how to imagine this, but I believe it should be more specific to prevent abuse. Overall, I think the Charter is well written.

The "even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C" portion of this is not acceptable at all: "Movement government structures may also refer UCoC enforcement cases or appeals, even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C, to the U4C." Nope. U4C has to stay within its scope or this will just turn into a "forum-shop my buddies to get a result the community denied me" kangaroo court. This even directly contradicts previous rulemaking in the same document: "The U4C will not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC, or its enforcement." This is also problematic (aside from the grammar error in it): "Provides a final interpretation of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC if the need arises, in collaboration with community members enforcement structures". This "collaboration" is undefined, and too vague to be meaningful.

Sec. 3, introductory language: Change "Whenever appropriate" to "Whenever possible".

However no more than two members can be elected from the same home wiki <- each home wiki rule has flaws: right now, CentralAuth considers homewiki that wiki where people registered their account; resp. during SUL 2.0 finalization, home wiki was defined where they were holding the highest rights – this can have changed over the past couple of years -> maybe you can find an easier solution (like people have to name their home wiki, although multi-language wikis like commons and wikidata might be named too often)

I miss description in the Charter if it would be possible or not for employees of the Chapter or WMF to candidate for a membership in the Commitee. I see this as a very important point of the functionality of the whole Commitee for the community. Just for example, if there was an ambitiouse, bossy CEO of the Chapter, who is making tensions and escalations of conflicts in the local community and in the Chapter especially with members (s)he personally dislike due critical opinions, but (s)he has so strong possition in the Hub, so (s)he can decide to candidate for the membership in the Commitee. And in the case (s)he gets a place there, (s)he can use this Commitee as another tool how to disqualifacate persons, (s)he does'n t like or critics.

The reference in 1.3 is incorrect, it should be 2.3 not 3.2.

Readability and Translations

The language is to "english". U4C is a abbreviation in a typical english (american) way. A Norwegian like myself, does not understand it. (I have translated the most of it, so I do, but it make no sense in my language)
In the articles of association, not generally understandable abbreviations are used without explaining what impairs understandability. A good place to explain the abbreviations would be the glossary. One should not assume that an abbreviation that is familiar to a group of Wikipedians is understandable for everyone. At this point you should rather explain more than too little.
The charter must be more rigorous and more accessible at the level.
There are many concerns about poor wording and the U4C should resolve as soon as possible.
As an American, I struggle to overcome the urge to change the British English spelling to my "normal" language, but I understand it.
Please translate into a correct German language.
Much to complicated. I don't understand anything what this is about. So sorry, I can't vote, even if I really like to and really tried to understand anything.
Fed up with being asked to comment on this or that, or being asked to vote, and ZERO effort is made to provide a translation of the voting page, which, frankly, wouldn't have taken much effort in the present case. Typical, isn't it, all from an English, nay, American perspective. "We believe our communities of contributors should be as diverse, inclusive, and accessible as possible": ?
It should be open for everyone, including new comers, and easily be understood by all of us
Under point 3.2 there is a typo in the German translation, it should mean: "Hold up the thought" (do not "tie up").
I find myself in agreement with many on the talk page who have suggested copy-editing the charter before proposing it for ratification. In many areas, it becomes word salad, and there are numerous complaints about the grammatical correctness of the wording of the charter.
The text is too complex, complicated and difficult to understand. Studying it in English is difficult for a non-native speaker and unfortunately the translation is not good. In order to be able to vote on this, very extensive and time-consuming studying would be required.
It should be available on every language
It lacks a plain English explanation. It lacks any sense of personality. It smells like legalese machine language.
The only quality - deplorable - of French translation does not make you want to go further.
The bylaws seem very effective, but appear quite complex to me. Since there are options for amendments, the implementation should be carried out and optimized later. Principles are global, but individual cases might be very culturally specific, and I'm not sure if they will be globally understandable. But let's give it a try.

Overall concerns with the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

I support the creation and implementation of the UCOC. I want to make some comments as general returns of the project. This section: expected behavior "This applies to all collaborators and participants in their interaction with other collaborators and participants, without exceptions based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural origin, caste, caste, caste Social class, linguistic fluidity, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or professional field. Nor will we make exceptions based on position, skills or achievements in projects or wikimedia movement. " I find it problematic because it assumes that these differences of racial, gender or any other area are merely enunciative, when in reality they imply a hierarchical position in social and political terms. And it also seems to sustain itself in a kind of "universal assumption" for behavior, stripped of those social, racial, political, etc. According to my experience, that universal assumption ends up being a position of "moral correction" of the global north, specifically for white, heterosexual, neurotypical, etc. In this type of protocols, correction in behavior from hegemonic enunciative positions is usually reinforced. This generates a lot of alert, especially because our movement has a deep and broad participation of neurodivergentes. It seems to me that this assumption will generate a capacitist bias in the movement, that worries me. This section: 3.1 - Harassment "behavior can be considered harassment if it goes beyond what would be expected that a reasonable person would tolerate in a global and intercultural environment." It is vague in information. What is a "reasonable" person? These types of statements are very capacitist, white and heterocentrated. And in general they rise in northern criteria. For a global southern lesbian in a context of precariousness, insisting on activist contact can be a connection strategy that is read from the north as excessive. I am also worried about the choice of "reasonable", because again emphasizes an alleged capacitist. This section: 3.3 - Vandalism and abuse of projects "The use of symbols, images, categories, labels or other types of content that are intimidating or harmful to others outside the context of encyclopedic or informative use. This includes the imposition of schemes on schemes on schemes on The content with the intention of marginalizing or excluding. " It does not realize that intimidating or harmful symbols have a social and political hierarchy. Rejecting a hate speech, for example, should not be an "intimidating" attitude but of defense of a vulnerabilized population, but because of the way it is written we can find ourselves in the near future with a racist person claiming that it was discriminated against by Your opinion. These protocols have double edge, and can quickly become demagogy tools that do not collect structural inequalities clearly in their criteria.
The decentralization of rulemaking and enforcement is essential in a volunteer project. UCoC was a bad idea: "acceptable" behavior varies with cultural background, there is no universal standard of politeness. Enforcement of these bad rules by a body that inevitably is totally non-representative (with so few members for so many languages) is a disaster in the making. There was practically no problem to solve with UCoC to begin with (as far as I recall, a single admin in English Wikipedia that was deemed problematic by people who mostly did not work on the articles there), construction of a nuke just in case some mosquitoes will appear in the future is hardly meaningful and can be very damaging.
I'm fundamentally against the Universal Code of Conduct and anything related to implementation of it. The Code of Conduct is an overreach by WMF, has bad provisions in it and should be deleted, and prior to deletion should have no implementation.
I respectfully believe this is overreach by the Wikimedia Foundation, and think that enforcement of conduct should be left decentralized among wikis.
I believe a UCoC is unnecessary, & the case for its adoption has not been made. All of the work on its adoption is a waste of resources better spent on enabling access to content.
2.1 "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible. Examples include: Ethnic groups may use a specific name to describe themselves, rather than the name historically used by others; People may have names that use letters, sounds, or words from their language which may be unfamiliar to you; People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns; People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves" -Scrap section. Too broad. What if someone describes themselves as 15 when they are actually 40. 3.1 Insults: Remove political affiliation from list of personal characteristics. (Truthfully) Calling out someone for being a neo-nazi, or a globalist, or a tory, etc. is legitimate debate. 3.3 Replace "Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs" with "Discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are" The original phrasing is too vague, and could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of say, the 1%.
There was insufficient community input into the UCoC itself. This vote is therefore putting the cart before the horse.
It seems to me that everytime a new UCoC draft is published, the more and more constraints and bureaucracy is added. Despite the very good intentions, my feeling is that, with such situation, an U4C that is called to analyse any WMF project, with the wide variety of local dynamics, policies and so on, eventually becomes poorly efficient in terms of time responsiveness.
I think that their should and to clearly More Independence Between Wikipedia and Wikimedia, If If If IF IF OUR WORLD WICHEDIA, Wikipedia needendentes Princcial. This independenty Should will also be clear in the ucoc, making southern the ucoc only schedules for the Wikimedia Projects Outsid the Wikipedia Projects
The reason why I am against these enforcement guidelines is because they essentially take all local autonomy away from the communities of the Wikimedia websites and turns it all into a highly bureaucratic ban-hammer with seemingly little appeal possibilities. Furthermore, it seems to completely take community-wide consensus building of the equation as section 2.2 states that besides paid members of the WMF and its affiliate organisations only those deemed "advanced rights holders" will ever be consulted on the training, this doesn't leave much community-wide transparency. The section further states "When possible the materials for these instructor-led trainings, such as individual modules, slides, questions, etc., will be publicly available" but this simply leaves room open for there to be parts of the training process that isn't publicly disclosed which seems problematic to me. Section 3.1.2. seems to be the most damning of all the sections, in it the UCoC guidelines specifically stipulate that local decisions and / or a local lack of will to enforce these guidelines is in itself in conflict with them. This means that from the moment the UCoC is fully implemented all local rules and regulations become fully subject to the UCoC and all local Wiki's lose any real autonomy. Rather than allowing local wiki's to decide for themselves who is and isn't welcome a violation on a single Wikimedia wiki can now mean a global ban from over 900 (nine-hundred) Wikimedia websites. To me, this guideline simply reads as "Wherever we couldn't punish a user earlier we now have the force to punish any user for any reason and we are not obligated to disclose why we punished this user", while this is already de facto true with WMF Global Bans, this new system will essentially be "the ban hammer of the gaps" where if any question of dispute of any behaviours arrives a global ban hammer with no local way of appeal is to be administered. A better system would be to implement global blocks on named Wikimedia SUL accounts and then allow local communities that want this user to contribute locally to unblock that person locally, this just adds an unnecessary bureaucratic structure that will be difficult to appeal to and difficult to overturn. Don't even get me started on how this explicitly states that WMF Global Bans will not be able to actually appealed despite earlier promises of such. Like how there is "the one ring to rule them all", this is "the one ban-hammer to ban them all" where any other local bans and blocks proved to not implement a total exclusion of a user, this system fully enables ban hammers at any levels and ArbCom-like stonewalling wherever this wasn't possible earlier. All this system will create is more disputes and exclude more productive users simply because a few "established users" on a handful of wiki's think that if a user is excluded on one wiki that they should be excluded from all. Just curious, but now that the WMF Tech Team and brainstormers have essentially exhausted all the possibilities of excluding people, deleting content, and preventing content creation, will they now FINALLY focus on improving these wiki's for content creators rather than deleters?! I have seen every possible step being taken to prevent content creation and with all the extra layers of filters and rules to exclude people, are we now FINALLY going to see the WMF focus on including rather than excluding content contributors? As it would seem that the decades long crusade to invent every possible ban-hammer under the sun should be over now, right? In fact, with this new guideline it seems that activities in Facebook or even what happens between the ears of any accuser can get someone banned now, so can we now finally focus on actually improving the software for both content contributors and the readers?
HATE Speech please define more precisely.
I disagree with this paragraph: "People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people." It is true that people have the right to choose their personal names (first and last names), but the common names of a language are chosen by the community of speakers of a given language: they mean what the community decides they mean and ''have the connotations (positive, neutral or negative) decided by the whole community, not just the members of the designated collective, or a part of that collective'''. What do we do if a word (Eskimo, for example) is an insult for some speakers but a neutral word for others? Are we going to punish people for using a word that for them has traditionally been neutral?
Codes of Conduct are typically weaponized in order to silence people. Other projects which adopt them treat certain violators more favorably (e.g. given a "warning" or some other slap on the wrist) while a CoC violation by another person of approximately equal severity may end up causing their exclusion from the project. These CoCs are usually drafted to sound harmless, innocent, and like they're there to establish order and protect people from abusive and violent misconduct, but this is never what ends up happening. I vote no on the Charter to establish the Universal Code of Conduct based upon my observations about every Free and Open Source Software project that has established a Code of Conduct. We should not have this and we should not lay the foundations for one to be passed. Hard NO. It doesn't take a CoC to define what constitutes horrible, abusive, and unacceptable behavior. It takes common sense.
Human history has never had a "universal" code of conduct, any anthropologist will tell you that every culture develops their own sense of appropriate conduct based on the time and the expectations of society. Forcing one on the wiki is therefore not a good idea, if conduct needs to be addressed it should be addressed as an evolving set of acceptable interactions based on what the community believes is appropriate for the time.
The UCoC is useless, it would be better to direct energy towards technical improvements and editor support. The Code cannot work because of religious, cultural and social differences. Small projects could probably benefit from it, but medium and large projects can deal with the problems themselves within their own rules. I don't like the way, that UCoC is being pushed from Foundation. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a left-wing non-profit organisation.
The community hasn't ratified the Universal Code of Conduct itself yet, and in my view, likely wouldn't. We shouldn't be ratifying a Co-ordinating Committee Charter as this is clearly premature.
In the section on sexual harassment, where it says "the person knows or reasonably should know that the attention is unwelcome or in situations where consent cannot be communicated" - this is a relatively permissive formulation which allows room for "I didn't know" or "I couldn't have known". I don't understand why this isn't formulated more explicitly along the lines of "unless it is unequivocally clear that the sexual attention or advances are explicitly, actively, and at the present time wished for by their subject". Surely the default should be the expectation that unless otherwise made very clear by the prospective subject of the attention, the CoC expects no sexual advances or attention.
In the insults section the part about "political affiliation" should be excluded, as it isn't some kind of personal position, but a public statement. As such it should be open to criticism.
I wish to get copyright and other attribution credit for my comment as user:bluerasberry. The rule that says, "Please do not provide personal information in your comments" is not to my benefit and discourages the routine option for transparency that Wikimedia community members routinely want when commenting. I oppose ratification of the charter because 1) it makes no commitment that the Wikimedia Foundation will support the use of Wikimedia Movement funds to empower the community of volunteers to do what is necessary to uphold the charter, while 2) it does commit financial resources to staff of the Wikimedia Foundation to advocate for its positions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct. We have had too many past occasions where Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers have come into conflict over judging ethics and user conduct. Ratifying this charter perpetuates the inequitable power imbalance in these conflicts by using the shared Wikimedia Movement funds to sponsor one side but not the other. I wish it were the case that there were not sides at all, but again, there have been past conflicts which are difficult to discuss, and the power imbalance is only increased by funding one of the sides that repeatedly, naturally arises. The charter seeks to "uphold the idea that no U4C member is more or less powerful than any other member." Money is power, but the charter only makes commitments for Wikimedia Foundation staff to access it in this scheme.. To prevent power imbalance everyone on the team has to have equal access to cash resources. Get a neutral third party in the mix, such as a university research team, to negotiate equity and be on hand specifically to take conflict reports between community and Wikimedia Foundation staff. If we do not have equity, then this charter can make conditions worse by designing a system whereby the Wikimedia Foundation divests responsibility for promoting civility while also failing to commit the resources necessary to empower community to meaningfully take that responsibility. Since the charter mentions paid staff, then commit to financial transparency specifically for all actions of the charter and let the volunteers be the ones who write, approve, and publish the financial report so it will be evident exactly how much money is in play here.
Oppose UCoC in general.
We DO NOT need a universal code of conduct
I prefer a election instead of a selection for the members of the U4C-Building commitee.
People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns; People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves This could be exploited.
I fear this Universal Code of Conduct will be used to stifle views different from the established left-leaning politics pervasive within the editing and administration communities.
The CoC, if enforced as currently worded, would make it impossible to advocate blocking individuals from a project on the basis that they lacked competence to do so.
There is still no community approval of any code of conduct, therefore nothing beyond that point can ever carry any legitimacy. That is a permanent and unchangeable "no" along with active opposition, until the Foundation backs up and actually manages to obtain community consensus on a Code of Conduct. It is severely disappointing that the Foundation is still unwilling or unable to constructively engage with the community, attempting to unilaterally and forcibly impose a code that is so badly botched that it can't obtain community approval in it's current state.
The UCoC provides a useful optional framework but should not have been imposed on wikis which already govern themselves well and do not want or need UCoC. I therefore oppose any proposal related to its implementation.
The word "free" is absent in UCoC. What are you guys so frightened of? You are committed to restrictions, regulations, sanctions, punishment. And more restrictions, regulations, sanctions, punishment. What a big step forward for humankind! What a shame.
I don't believe in a universal code of conduct, neither in his committee. All projects and all linguistic versions make a great cultural diversity in the Wikimedia movement, which is not compatible with a monolithic code. I think that the universal code of conduct will be political power use by a committee that couldn't represent the diversity of projects and culture present in the movement. For me harassment and all problematic behaviors on Wikimedia projects and movement have to be managed by the project communities seeking consensus and taking care about legals structures and lows in multiple countries. The terms of uses, already applied on Wikimedia websites, can be a good basis for decision concerning problematic behavior. I prefer to enhance them, then creating a separated universal code of conduct.
There is no awareness of the abuse that is being made of the UCoC. There should be an explicit section that the UCoC should not be used for exclusion or discrimination. We know of many dictatorships (e.g. Russia, China) which abuse their own legal structure to suppress criticism, like Navalny's. Likewise, the UCoC is grossly abused for purposes of suppression by admin members in the Arbitration Committee at nl.wikipedia. The UCoC and Charter do not address the totalitarian abuse of their legal structure, there are no safeguards.
I cannot vote to ratify a charter for a committee whose job it is to enforce a Code of Conduct when that Code of Conduct has not itself been ratified yet.

Regional representation

There should not be regional "reserved" seats. All candidates should be selected at-large.
Regional distribution is a false good idea. Against the secret bulletin during the election. The parties should be able to reject members of the committee. Too low involvement of the community deemed "faulty".
The regional seat scheme may require further verification procedures to ensure that selected persons are actually representative of said regions. Best of luck to the charter and committee!
I hope that in the future the seats with regional distribution can give greater representation to the representatives of Asia and Africa
I think "2.2.1. Regional Distribution" should be fairer for non-Western population, reflecting more realistic population and economic size.If you give "Northern and Western Europe" and "Central and East Europe (CEE)" two separate distribution, "East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)" should be diveded to "East Asia(Greater China, Korea, Japan)" and "Southeast Asia and AZ and NZ". If somebody thinks "Oh, the U.K. and Russia are really different politically, cultularly and religiously", so do China, Japan, Indonesia and New Zealand.
UNFAIR REGIONAL REPRESENTATION. Southeast Asia should be separated from ESEAP! Europe with 750 mil population is split in two and gets at least 4 votes. Southeast Asia has approximately the same population but a lot more languages and cultures!
A strange distribution of places of assessors. In view of the formed regions and, accordingly, the number of representatives. By the way, the number of representatives is desirable to have an odd number. Quote from the Charter, with a doubt in the section: "2.2.1. The regional distribution so that the U4C reflects the variety of movements, eight representatives - one representative from each region - will be elected taking into account the regional distribution. In accordance with the regional approach of the Vimedia Foundation, the regional distribution will be the following : * North America (USA and Canada) * North and Western Europe * Latin America and the Caribbean region * Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) * Africa south of Sahara * The Middle East and North Africa * Eastern, Southeast Asia and the Pacific region (Eseap) * South Asia. "
I am concerned with regional seats being selected by global elections. There is a possibility a candidate who is unpopular within their own region is nevertheless elected to the seat by a global majority. Even if this never actually happens, such accusations would be difficult to disprove with a secret ballot system. This could give rise to perceptions of tokenism and undermine the relationships between the U4C and the communities it oversees and represents. Holding more exclusive and genuinely regional elections would achieve greater buy-in from regions with fewer users and less influence in Wikimedia politics. This would help ensure those projects' continued growth and development, and advance the global vision of the WMF. One potentially viable way of doing this could be to allow voters to participate in only one regional election of their choice in every cycle. This would eliminate the need to establish and enforce residency or other requirements for voting in a given region.
Giving South Asia its own seat; yet grouping East Asia, South East Asia, and the entirety of the Pacific a single seat, gives an unbalanced representation.
Regional distribution requirements interfere with the community's ability to choose the best qualified candidate for each seat. Voters can weigh diversity along with other factors when they cast their ballots, and I cannot support guidelines that override their judgment with an inflexible quota system.
Regional distribution: Although it is said that "we should strive to gain knowledge of local policies and culture," the range of one area is too wide. In particular, it is impossible to collect East Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania at once. In addition, Caucasus countries and Central Asian countries are not included anywhere.
For Regional Distribution, I oppose defining North America as solely the US and Canada, and grouping Mexico in with the entirety of Central and South America. It seemingly gives more power to the majority white and English-speaking countries of the Americas and less to all others. Including Mexico in North America would also even out the population distribution between the two regions in the Western Hemisphere. Also, I believe there should be term limits.

Relationship to other Wikimedia groups and communities

I reject the introduction of the U4C in well -functioning communities such as the German -speaking Wikipedia prince and therefore cannot support partial steps in this direction.
There are seemingly no practical restrictions on the U4C's jurisdiction over projects without NDA-signed high-level decision making bodies. Whether a high-level decision making body is NDA-signed or not is a distinction not present in the enforcement guidelines. This undermines the concept of admin panels which are supposed to be co-equal with the U4C if set-up by a local project (or group of projects). This is my only issue with the charter.
There is insufficient clarity on how the Committee is supposed to be "co-equal" with bodies like Arbitration Committees, while having the ability to effectively overrule such bodies.
U4C was created outside of enwiki, to be enforced upon enwiki by Wikimedia. We don't need that here - we have our own governance.
I am concerned about the lack of protection of local processes, and inadequate safeguarding against abuse of the UCOC's associated processes. The policy presumes that people will always be acting in good faith and that the UCOC will always be correct -- neither are going to always be the case and the text should account for this.
Am I voting twice? If I am, I apologize. My view remain the same, however. Language projects, presumably smaller ones with poor or insufficient governance who wish for this, I'm find with that. But for larger language projects, like EN, who are already sufficiently self-governing, I feel it is a WMF overreach that goes counter to the ethos of the Movement. Thank you
The Charter gives the U4C broad, sweeping powers with no checks to prevent the U4C itself from systemically failing to enforce the UCOC, or to prevent the U4C from overriding local consensus unnecessarily. The U4C is restricted in action only on the English Wikipedia, as all other projects do not have a NDA'd ArbCom. Writing a policy to exempt a certain community because they are likely to oppose is antithetical to how the Wikimedia community is organized. Also, y'all need to copyedit this stuff before you send it out.
I see no rationale behind the fact that only NDA-signed bodies are considered high-level decision-making bodies: this was not clearly stated in previous UCoC policies.
some policies are a bit different on other wikis.
I’m worried that we could have another FRAM situation. There is no oversight from local Wikipedia projects on these enforcement committee members. How will WMF be sure that the enforcement committee will be sufficiently transparent.
The whole of this approach is very large bureaucratic heaviness. It aims to give a power of interference in the communities to a committee very far from them. The risk of information, especially by far-left political groups, is enormous.

General: Positive

It is good to see we might finally get to a point where systemic problems can be addressed even when high-level bodies refuse to recognise their impact.
I support the Charter of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee based on the drafted language
I appreciate the thorough consultation process, which has imho significantly improved the draft. Would like to express my thanks to the committee members for their good work.
For me, the committee is good to go.
Overall the charter seems fine. There are details that could be improved, but I would strongly support working with the current charter and ironing out those details as we move forward, rather than standing still until we have a perfect draft. Maybe even set a date for a next iteration to be considered?
I recall being dissatisfied with various aspects of the code itself. But the expectations I have for voting members would basically sound like this.
I think it was long needed.
Thanks for the work that went into this Code!
I understand that the text is well intentional and necessary, although I doubt that it serves something. In my humble opinion, in practice the application of the code will always depend on people, with their interests, filias and phobias. Its existence can give a sense of false security to users who are seen in risk situations, although at least it establishes desirable behavior guidelines. I know that you always have to presume good faith, but by the operating dynamics seen so far in Wikimedia in unpleasant situations, the existence of the code does not inspire me guarantee of anything, even if it is a desirable guide. In the end, the important thing is the integrity of the people who have to decide in each case, more than the text itself. But it is a good start and a guide for those who arrive new.
I had earlier also recommended for a universal code of conduct and now it is happening, it is very good. This will teach a lesson to some people who harass others by forming groups in Wikipedia.
I support this transition, change is the source of new things.
YES!!, Why not?
I agree because I trust that it gets better than worse and that the original values of the Wikipedia can be better struggled, maintained and maintained. In addition, the protection of WP newcomers and empathy should be increased. Otherwise it is actually a lot of text that is also not understandable for everyone ...
This will be a special benefit to small wikis like WikiQuote, ~~~~
I appreciate the Foundation's clear leadership and guidance on this issue, especially the commitment to improving our editing environment against harassment and abuse.
We have been discussing this for long enough. It is long past the time to enforce a minimum conduct across the movement.
Thank you for all the work on the U4C, as it seems an enormous effort.
The idea of developing universal standards is important. At the same time, we should be aware that globalization is always a rational construct. Global thinking must not exclude the possibility of mental diversity.
thank you for a code of conduct, please implement this code now.
I believe that this Universal Code of Conduct can bring Wikipedia better for all the world. I would be happy if they define the code simpler to commoners.
Thank you
I agree that U4C should play its role in ensuring that UCoC policies properly.
Being respectful and aware of the other must be a distinctive brand of Wikipedia, one of the most important projects of humanity. It is difficult to achieve total empathy, but any effort to promote it must be disseminated, supported and respected. Total support for respect and reconciliation of differences!
I support the Charter of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee
I have seen a lot of inappropriate conduct from administrators on the English Wikipedia, and I hope that this can create some additional external oversight. I am voting "Yes", but I worry that this committee may reinforce the existing social capital (https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2023.15).
No comment, thanks! It's not meant to suit my needs alone!
Despite some flaws, it's the badly needed step in the right direction.
Beautiful work of development and writing, even if the Anglo-Saxon concept of "community" does not work well with the French lexicon.
Thank you very much
Any organization most have Conduct of conduct, these will guard all the worker and entire member of the organization to stick with the rules and regulations.
I support the Charter of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee
I support the ratification of the charter. My thought is that the greatest diversity of communities should happen, including communities, say in CEE, usually underrepresented in other community things.
Having such a universal code is better than dealing with somebody's petty tyranny in a specific project.
Please, complete this process asap so the communities (especially women and underrepresented communities) can feel really safe in the Movement.
No particular concerns. Good job !
Deeply inside my heart I support the working of committee and the movement.
I have no objection I support the draft codially
I read the Charter line by line, and I'm satisfied, thank you to those who put it together.
I just hope that U4C manages to make UCOC apply, to manage and really solve the big problem of harassment in Wikimedia projects.
It is necessary to maintain a point on respect for self -name of people by ethnicity. Thank you.
Thank you all for the good work!
Seems legit.
The above mentioned Meta-wiki comment page contains a second dedicated section allowing community members to share ideas for improvement and amendments. This is helpful to collect ideas from individuals and aims to be open to all voices in the community. U4C is required to read and decide if they want to adopt these ideas when drafting a proposal during the annual process. I am comfortable with the idea of possibly improving and amending the Universal Code of Conduct, as there is too much to read at present.
This is a great initiative that will creat an amazing transformation going forward.
very well written
The charter is comprehensive, clear and objective
The charter seems good. There was too little advance coordination. The UC4 should be called an Arbitration Committee.
No! I have no concerns! THANKS

General: Negative

Hell no. I regret casting an uninformed vote in favor of the UCoC -- I think that was the second time it came up for a vote. As if small wikis aren't struggling enough -- partly due to WMF actions and where it devotes its *helpful* efforts, rather than operate, largely, under locally-adopted rules optimized for their unique missions, communities, and other circumstances as they did for decades, now they will be forced to adopt the social rules that have made en.wp such a toxic collaborative environment. That will happen under threat of penalties, like project closure, imposed by a body likely composed entirely of outsiders who seek to impose on all projects their opinions on how things should be run. What works for one project does not necessarily work for any other. I see there's a provision in here for geographical-region quotas for candidates. Great. But I haven't seen any project quotas -- e.g., one seat being reserved for Wikiquote users to be elected to it, another for Wikibooks users, etc. The whole UCoC process is being put to a Wikimedia-wide vote. Shockingly, large wikis will get more of a say as a result. Y'all talk a good game about equity and diversity, but where are equity and diversity among projects? This is an exercise in imposing an uninformed, top-down bureaucracy on supposedly self-governing volunteers, and as Cremastra said, "a solution in search of a problem".
I thing some sort of enforcement of the UCOC is necessary, but I do not believe the proposed committee will be a net positive, on grounds of lack of transparency and ease for bad actors to take advantage of the system.
In view of the already existing over-regulation of the Wikipedia projects, I do not consider the planned statute to be expedient-especially with regard to a more bearable working atmosphere.
While I don't get any trust, not even zero, but less than that, Ucoc does not correspond to my understanding a free Wikipedia, but I see fascist features here.
All this legalism is out of reach of my understanding. The nightflow of codes with the freshness of the project.
Neither time nor desire to read such long texts in a volunteer project. A "tl; dr" needed at the beginning
In the charter, nothing has been said about the tampering of Wikipedia by the members of the Left Group.
Wikipedia is supposed to an encyclopedia not a social media platform
I basically reject a global requirement.
Disgrace and an attempt to override the autonomy of local Wikipedia languages. The WMF is full of bureaucrats who don't edit Wikipedia themselves and are out of touch with the editing community
Over -regulation
Under protest, but still ...
Never ever again I will trust the WMF. Those power in your hands is the problem, not the solution.
I vote against because I no longer trust the Wikipedia administration which is extremely free and precise for entries without political content. However, when it comes to things that disturb the System, the entries are effectively locked down and changes made impossible. Unfortunately I cannot understand from what is proposed what the practical impact of the code will be.
Abstain. The process seems similar to ArbCom elections and I don't have confidence that the volunteer system is the way to go here. It seems like Wikimedia employees might actually be a better neutral enforcement mechanism, but they are banned from election.
It is unclear what exactly is voted on. Please link a page with the complete text and numbered paragraphs, so that one can say: I agree with all, except article 123, section abc.
The current regulation is sufficient and has proven its worth. There is no guarantee of improvement through the creation of additional bodies.
Hurry up already, it's 2024 and we still don't have this up and running. WE ARE LOSING WOMEN IN COORDINATED ATTACKS. Consultation as a substitute for the code is confusing. Consultation as an obstacle to implementation is harmful. Speed is a feature that is more valuable than all of those other things combined; it's in our name, and almost everything under discussion is reversible.
Not comments about the charter itself: 1. Voting period seems mighty short. 2. The Vote Info page should not have a Vote Here button at the top and then well down the page a warning that you should read the page before clicking on the button.
One more bureaucratic layer to apply a CH
A top-down philosophy that runs counter to the way Wikipedia works historically.
I feel like this is excessive bureaucracy and centralizing too much power and control. A slimmed down process would be helpful for the smaller projects, and a much smaller guidance to offer suggestions and assistance to larger projects upon request would be useful. Not, however, this.
I think it may cause elitism, since more rules mean that people with more “free time” to get used to Wikipedia may use the rules to their advantage, even when they are wrong. “Common editors” will have no choice but to abide. In law, the state needs to provide a lawyer for those who cannot afford one, so that “common people” will not be crushed by the “elites”. This new guideline seems like it adds more “laws”, which may cause Wikipedia/Wikimedia to be more “elitist” than it already is; so I voted No.
danger of too much controlling, too bureaucratic.
Neither charter nor code, that the foundation remains in its place, far.
This is window dressing at best. It will do nothing to improve the projects or tackle persistent abuse by people who don't share our goals. It's just another stick to beat those who do.
Too long and complex.
Don't need global busybodies managing local strong discourse.
Wikipedia has survived without it. Yes, there are bullies out there, But I fear giving a committee authority with unspecified limitations.
Creating another conduct enforcement body above the ArbCom is not acceptable.
This charter increases the disciplinary powers of WMF, without reason justified in my opinion. In addition, it does not take sufficient account of the specificities - in particular linguistic - of certain communities.
In so many languages there is no enforcement even of basic principles that have served the English language wikipedia well. Given that power is usually weaponized, it will be, particularly as nationalist and fascist forces enter the Wikimedia Movement in larger numbers by cloaking themselves as rule-abiding members. The minorities will always remain outraged and use language that will put them at the receiving end of so-called rule-abiding arbitrators. A degree of anarchism has been the greatest gift for Wikipedia's success. It's role has never been appreciated enough.
Down with the adoption of common rules of conduct!
The comitee*s goals seem to be aimed at a culture war and I reject this.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a law system.
Nonsense from the first to the last line. The committee should dissolve immediately.
Per the long-standing community consensus that Wikipedia should be managed by community consensus, this quasi-judicial body adds nothing except additional layers of bureaucracy.
To the Foundation, the community of editors are not valued stakeholders, but nuisances to be contained and controlled. Our self-governing, volunteer communities plod along with substandard software while the Foundation raises money for its own salaries and dilutes the voices of Wikimedians by changing bylaws and stacking Board positions. Why should any of us ratify disempowering bureaucratic tools when we can't even get dark mode or graphs that work?
Resist modes and entrism.
>>If you have concerns about the Charter I have concerns about the WMF paid staff taking over the administration of the project, rather than doing their job of keeping the servers running. This is another step in the wrong direction.
To much corporate speak.
This entire process has been a silly distraction that has gone on far too long. It has accomplished nothing. It's not really clear how it will ever accomplish anything other than allowing space on Meta for people to publish long-winded treatises that no one will ever read. It reminds of Soviet papers by intellectuals published with all pomp that the farmer isn't even aware exist, much less have read it, much less having any impact on their work. I oppose this in any form. Go focus on pragmatic, granular issues instead of grand-standing declarations that the vast majority of users and readers wont be aware of ever, much less read, much less care about.
Dismantle it!
You host the servers. That's your job. Stop telling us how to run our community.
Like any bad referendum, it isn't clear what I'm voting on.
Everything is too controlled, the UCOC is already covered. We do not need a dancing through the foundation
As a regulatory lawyer I find the importation into Wikipedia of these stifling quasi-legal procedures depressing.
I do not see any effective way to apply these rules, it is my fears to remain ink on paper
Again it is kind of centralised system. Unless Wikipedia doesn't remove its liberal bias in citations and changes its policy to eliminate liberal bias. I won't support any of these
The philosophy of UCOC is a good idea, but the implementation method is distant and complicated, and it is too crowded in parts that do not understand general users and viewers. I have a lot of doubts about how effective it is compared to the effort I'm doing.
I strongly object to the influence of Trust & Safety.
I object to it being made to seem more difficult in the instructions to vote oppose than support. I take this to be an attempt to deter oppose votes.
The gay agenda doesn't sit well with my Culture's sensibilities!
For reasons of confidentiality, I oppose the implicit tracing indicated and claims my desire for personal and digital anonymity.
Whole excercise seems like a giant waste of money feeding into worthless NGO-Foundation complex.
Unnecessary document that ignores cultural differences and pushes the only WMF California-centric POV on the governance of Wikipedias.
No need additional burocracy, we have a friendly space policy, it's enough
It's so unbelievably ridiculous what you're making up. A lot of warm air in heaps of words. My suggestion for improvement: just let it go and go have a drink. Take care of the authors, slim down your water head administration and don't waste the money of misguided and uninformed donors.


I hope I made the right choice ...
I understand that I vote for the form and content of this charta and not for the legitimation and implementation of the CoC itself.
That can make more minor language those own scripts bring out to realize proper applications, and increasing public display to earn more attention for people to encourage use they own language's unique scripts.
With the availibility of translation services nowadays these sorts of things aren't really an issue anymore.
No comment.
OpenAI has made WP obsolete.
What's wrong with saying "Draft language" in the question?
Always taking into consideration the relevance of the work of volunteers and user groups beyond the chapters.
My A.I., Veronica/Monica was not on the committee. That's not fair to her.
fuck woke
We need as well as the violation of the volumes, because everything in order is better and travel
I have no idea.
Per Barkeep's comments on the talk
I enjoy contributing to Wikimedia
Unelected anonymous users
I advocate for the rights of all IP addresses around the world. They deserve a right to edit, not have their edits needlessly reverted, and to be 'thanked' for their contributions. 🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡
I've no comment
The UCC draft addresses a much needed area on today's Wikimedia projects. For example, on en.wikipedia, adding material based on new, best quality research reference citations is disallowed by a very small group of editors in the case of articles which involve the medicinal properties of natural plants. In large part, the three revert rule allows this clique to prevent constructive editing of these articles by any individual editor. And, in fact, blatant and deliberate disregard of editing standards are rampant. Maybe at last there will be a solution to this major problem?
I am very careful about editing, but I want you to stop it.