Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text/Revision discussions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Universal Code of Conduct

Safe and inclusive community (Section 3.1 note)


After the conclusion of the community vote on the guidelines in March, the Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Board requested review of the controversial Note in 3.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct itself.

Current text

Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for personal attacks.

Conversations about identity factors[1] are challenging, as they touch upon deep beliefs and often painful experiences in many. Questions have been raised about the Note on race and ethnicity in section 3.1 by multiple individuals, including in this letter by Wikimedia user group Whose Knowledge?, which articulates some of the points of concern. It has been suggested that the Note be removed, which would not diminish the protections against hate speech in the preceding text. The Note’s inclusion is on the contrary running counter to the goals of fostering safety and inclusion. Do you support the proposal to remove the Note in Section 3.1 on race and ethnicity or do you have alternative proposals?

Local references


Discussion (Section 3.1)

While it is right and proper for "race" and "ethnicity" to be discussed in an encyclopeadic context in an appropriate Wikipedia, their use as a basis of personal attacks between members of the Wikimedia community is prohibited.
Martinvl (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...their use as a basis of personal attacks [...] is prohibited." So I'm allowed to use other criteria as a basis of personal attacks? That's probably not what you had in mind with that sentence. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disallowing one criterion does not mean all others are automatically allowed. That said, personal attacks are prohibited anyway, so explicitly prohibiting race and ethnicity as a basis for them is somewhat redundant. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:58C5:FCC4:481D:C5BF 12:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While race does not exist in humans, racism does. So please rewrite the clauses in question so, that the word race is unnecessary and the prohibited behavior is described as what it is: racism. --h-stt !? 16:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the clauses in question were written the way they are in order to give a definition of what is to be considered racist, instead of just writing ‘racism’ and letting everyone figure out for themselves what exactly that term covers. The wording of the two very sentences discussed here horribly fails to convey that, though; it sounds as if ‘race’ were a universal concept, just one that the Foundation does not endorse as a distinction among people. Actually ‘race’ is far from being a universal concept: In addition to being a biological notion that has turned out to be inappropriate for humans as a species, it has also become a social construct in, e.g., the United States. And in that sense, ‘race’ does exist. Instead of using the problematic term ‘race,’ the clauses should be precise about the types of distinctions between people that, when referred to as (assumed or actual) personal traits of a conversational partner, induce an insult. (That isn’t easy at all.) --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:E590:C336:DB5B:5CA8 11:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably too far-reaching for this discussion, but most of the categories after ‘perceived characteristics like’ could be collectively replaced with something along the lines of affiliation with a group of people based on biological or social constructions, which would definitely cover ‘race,’ ‘ethnicity,’ ‘culture,’ ‘caste,’ ‘sex,’ ‘disability,’ ‘age,’ arguably also ‘nationality,’ and possibly ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender’ as well (though mentioning them explicitly greatly reduces the risk of misunderstandings). Another way of distancing the Code’s language from the problematic notion of ‘race’ could be to add something like regardless of whether there is an evidential basis or not for considering them meaningful distinctions among people after ‘or other characteristics.’ --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:E590:C336:DB5B:5CA8 12:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, as before, personal attacks are prohibited, just leave it as that. If you want to include not making judgements of any type based on charateristics X, Y, Z, then we need some far better defining. That is, the definitions better be good enough that they translate effectively into 100+ languages and execute in a practical fashion. Currently, they would not. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with removing it. Race does exist as a social construct and is hugely influential in the world, and we aren't doing anyone any favours by denying it. I can also see this statement making the movement less welcoming to non-white contributors. Hut 8.5 12:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biological races and subspecies do exist, and anyone who asserts “there is no such thing as biological race” is ignoring how the term is used by actual biologists, at least in English. As to whether the various and wonderfully diverse human lineages can be considered subspecies, or races, or something else, actually doesn't matter. Most modern “racial” discrimination and vilification is based on cultural heritage (ethnicity), genealogy, and appearance, not 19th-century concepts of the “species of Man”. This is somewhat tangential to whether race is a “meaningful distinction”; rather, I'm making a counter-argument against the rationale “there is no such thing as race, therefore keep/delete the sentence”. Pelagic (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While a biological concept of race or subspecies obviously exists, as far as I am informed it has turned out to be inappropriate for the (single remaining) human species. If I recall the argumentation correctly, one of the reasons is the low genetic variance among humans. Another argument that I have heard is that the variance within (the ‘classical’) ‘races’ is actually higher than the variance between them. While I am quite sure that many ethnic groups also manifest themselves as well-defined clusters in terms of genetic disposition, this is probably not what people commonly call ‘race,’ and it is obviously not a desirable basis for personal attacks either. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:F856:AAC0:D489:2DC2 13:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully support removing this. I can understand where whoever wrote this was coming from—they were that including the word race in the UCoC could be construed as support for race realism—but as written this is cludgy and just factually incorrect. As any first year anthropology student could tell you, race is a social construct, but it absolutely does not follow that it isn't a "meaningful distinction" between people. Social categories by definition lead to powerful, meaningful distinctions being made between people, and race is obviously no exception. This poor attempt at clarification adds nothing to the UCoC and, as the Whose Knowledge? group's letter explains much better than I could, it is much more likely that this statement will be taken as dismissing the experiences of people who have experienced racism or other forms of ethnic discrimination – because, intentional or not, that is what it says. Joe Roe (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, what’s a ‘meaningful distinction’ between people anyway? --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:F856:AAC0:D489:2DC2 13:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, I was working on the ground floor of an office block in London. One of my colleagues from (I think) the Hong Kong office visited our office and telephoned me, inviting me to join him for a discussion. He told me "I am the Chinese guy who is half-way down the [open-plan] office". Obviously, the word "Chinese" was meaningful in this context, otherwise he would not have used it.
Definitely ;) And so could have been ‘black’ or ‘white.’ In a personal attack, such a distinction would be unacceptable in all cases (including ‘Chinese’). --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:C001:45DF:1213:6741 12:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to elaborate a bit more on what I wanted to get at: ‘Meaningful’ is such a fuzzy, context-dependent word that calling something (not) a ‘meaningful distinction between people’ is not very meaningful here… Maybe it would help to put ‘race’ in a line with ‘other constructs’ (whatever the correct language) to clarify that the word ‘race’ is supposed to refer to a(n existing) social construct without supporting, denying or commenting on any claim made by that construct. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:C14C:5ADA:FDB2:22D 20:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove it, please. As many others have pointed out, "race" as defined by and for human society has no basis in evolutionary reality, but society has given it meaning; and denying that meaning is akin to race blindness. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • مع تعديلها وليس إزالتها كلية، فالتميز العرقي والاثني أمر واقع ولا يوجد حرج كبير في استعمال التمييز فإن ناداني أحدهم "أيها العربي" فلن ، يُحرك مشاعري أو يجعلني مضطهدا، لأنه في الأخير يتعلق بسياق الحديث وليس في التمييز في حد ذاته ، لكن تكرار أو استعمال هذا التمييز بغير موضعه هو الذي يجب أن يكون محظورا (والأمر في رمته تقديري، ويحتمل عدة تأويلات)

التعديل المقترح: ترى حركة ويكيميديا "العرق" و"الإثنية" باعتبارهما تمييزًا ذا مغزى بين الناس أمرًا ثانويًا، وتحظر استخدامها ضد الآخرين كأساس للهجمات الشخصية.--Nehaoua (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the note, but I have no problem if you remove it. I am not interested in any personal information on contributors ("race", gender, religion, visual acuity, biceps size or whatever). A contributor is a contributor, period. JohnNewton8 (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note seems logically flawed (you can't deny the existence of something and prohibit it). However the rhetoric of the so called "whose knowledge" user group is much more disturbing, since it can easily be used to promote a racialist agenda ("racists exist thus races exist, and it's pertinent and moraly right to base policies on race categories... blah blah blah"). In consequence, either keep the present formulation as a lesser evil, or find one that will bar any perverse interpretation. Diderot1 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agreed to remove it because the note doesn't help to make clear of any thing. it's not needed because personal attack always included as attack on biological identity of the person which is used as target. Agus Damanik (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • أقترح إزالة هذه الكلمات لأنها كلمات غير واضحة وبحاجة لتعريف دقيق، بخلاف ذلك فنحن نستعمل فهمنا الشخصي لها القائم على الانحيازات الثقافية التي اكتسبناها من مجتمعاتنا نتيجة التربية.
نعاني في المجتمع العربي من ترجمة هذه الكلمات بدقة، وفتحنا مؤخراً نقاشاً حول ذلك ولم نصل لنتيجة، وحتى لو رجعنا إلى المعاجم المختصة فيوجد اختلاف شاسع في التفسير.
لذلك الافضل برأي هو الإزالة، مع إمكانية الإبقاء ولكن بشرط تعريف المصطلحات تعريفاً دقيقاً وشاملاً لإزالة اي ليس ولحماية الأفراد من استعمال هذه الكلمات للتمييز--Michel Bakni (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • أميل إلى تأييد مُقترح الزميل @Nehaoua:، فنعتنا بالانتماء إلى هذه الجماعة أو تلك لن يُؤثِّر علينا طالما نحن فعلًا ننتمي إليها أو نُعرِّف أنفسنا أننا منها، والأفضل تعديل الصياغة بأن لا يكون الهدف من النعت الاستهزاء أو التحقير--باسم (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, strike this. Among other issues, the callout of race and ethnicity specifically implies that the Foundation *does* endorse the other distinctions listed as being meaningful. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • أتفق مع إزالة النص بشكله الحالي لعدم وجود تعريف دقيق للعرق والإثنية، ولا توضح الفكرة المطلوبة ولكن أشير لتعديله ليصبح: لا تؤيد حركة ويكيميديا التمييز على أساس الجنس والأصل والدين، باعتبارهما تمييزًا ذا مغزى بين الناس. يتم تضمينها هنا للإشارة إلى أن استخدامها ضد الآخرين كأساس للهجمات الشخصية محظور.

أي بالرغم من تعريف كل شخص لذاته بانتمائه لشيء معين، إلا أنَّه من المحظور التنابذ بالانتماء وبالهوية الشخصية للفرد.--Sandra HANBO (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Yes, Strike it, as there is no clear definition for "Race" and "Ethnicity" word, thus the idea wouldn't be clear, But I suggest replacing it with: "The Wikimedia movement does not endorse origin, gender and religion as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited from using against others as the basis for personal attacks." The meaning as even everybody has their own definition of themselves. It should be prohibited to use it for personal attack--Sandra HANBO (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another related thought just struck me: Since the UCoC is also supposed to be apply to Main namespace, I think it should be made clear somewhere in the UCoC that the prime standard for content is w:Wikipedia:Verifiability (or some project-specific variant thereof). Otherwise there could (and probably would) be people trying to construe the UCoC as requiring the removal of (verifiably sourced) information of which they claim that it contradicts (for example) their religious beliefs, thus (allegedly) being harassment. (I have also seen this in cases where private companies demanded the removal of sourced-but-uncomfortable information from their Wikipedia articles. This would not be harassment in the UCoC sense, though, since companies are not persons.) --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:1841:71F1:5036:836 08:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the note should be removed entirely from section 3.1 of the UCoC. After reading diverse arguments and opinions in this thread, it is still clear that the note doesn't help in any way to protect non-white contributors in the Wikimedia projects. As a movement, we should continue advancing in our efforts (not only intentions), to tackle racism as a system of power, privilege and oppression, not merely as a "distinction" among people. --Mariana Fossatti (WK?) (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or change to

Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse use of concepts like "race", "ethnicity", "sex", "gender" or similar as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for personal attacks.

Taylor 49 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Safe and inclusive community (Doxing)


I would like us to look at this section as well:

Current text

Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.

Question 1

As written, this means that if someone in government or in a commercial company edits a Wikipedia article in a way that indicates a conflict of interest, no Wikipedian is allowed to comment on that on-wiki or off-wiki. In fact, as written, this passage categorically forbids Wikipedians from commenting on what other people are doing in Wikipedia anywhere outside of Wikipedia. This would be a very major and far-reaching paradigm shift. Do you support rewording of this passage? --Andreas JN466 18:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

Suppose that User:A libels User:B with the result that User:B suffers a financial loss. Although User:A be banned from editing, the WMF cannot force User:A to make good User:B's financial losses. User:B's only recourse is to take legal action which will neccessitate disclosing User:A's personal details to the court and if the matter goes to a hearing, to the general public. The text, as it currently stands, puts the WMF above the courts. Do you support rewording the current text to recognise that the courts are a higher authority than the WMF? Martinvl (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Doxing)


(edit conflict, twice; not again!) This has a number of issues.

  • explicit consent: There could (and probably would) be discussions about what constitutes ‘explicit consent’ and how to prove that the user in question did provide it. Declaring consent on-wiki would seem strange to me, since instead of expressing consent the user could just have disclosed the information themself. On the other hand, what about information the user did disclose in the past? Can this be seen as explicit consent to making this information public again, years later possibly, when nobody remembers the original disclosure anymore?
  • either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere: This is tricky given that Wikimedia is obviously not in a position to make rules for outside the Wikimedia projects, and sanctions within a Wikimedia project against a user who violated some Wikimedia rule somewhere else (e.g. by disclosing personal information of a fellow Wikipedian) would themselves require drawing a connection between the infringing person there and the Wikimedia user here, which could itself be a violation of this policy.
  • sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects: Posting a link to a user’s Contributions outside a Wikimedia project could be seen as a violation of this policy, which (at least to me) seems unreasonably strict.

Suggestion: dropping the consent-based policy altogether (nobody is allowed to disclose private information about other Wikimedia users that they have not previously disclosed themselves) and restricting it to cases that can reasonably be dealt with inside the Wikimedia universe. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:58C5:FCC4:481D:C5BF 13:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are multiple issues here. The COI one is likely the biggest, but the lack of sharing outside the project is both a vast expansion of UCOC scope, tough to enforce, and comes with some problems when sharing would be logical. I believe it is also worth discussing with fr-wiki, as they have some anti paid-coi efforts that would be prohibited by this. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strike "place of employment", as there is no way to enforce our COI and UPE policies when that sort of discussion is prohibited. The "explicit consent" is also a bit concerning -- if a user posts "Hi, I'm John Smith" on their user page, that seems like implied consent, not explicit consent, yet I can't see anyone having an issue with using that information. "Intentionally disclosed" seems like a better test. As for the "outside of Wikipedia" section, I understand the intent is to prohibit publishing "John Smith is User:Example", but as written it seems to prohibit "User:Ahecht posted on the revision discussions page". I would suggest rewording the entire thing to: Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing information, either on a Wikimedia project or elsewhere, that links a Wikimedia contributer's username with private information that they haven't intentionally disclosed or otherwise explicitly consented to sharing. Private information includes, but is not limited to, name, physical address, or email address.. -- Ahecht (TALK
    ) 17:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be written in a way that does not hamper current enforcement against long-term abuse, off-wiki coordination, COI, paid editing, sockpuppetry, and any other form of abuse that is currently routinely discussed between and/or with admins and functionaries. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two big considerations here. The first is just a matter of clarity/organization: sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects, simply isn't doxing. If it's to be included, it should be its own line about off-wiki harassment. The second issue is that it opens a larger question: this is the only part of the UCoC that deals with harassment on other sites. To what extent should the UCoC extend to Wikimedians' participation on third-party sites? To what extent can it? Undoubtedly, a non-trivial amount of harassment occurs outside of Wikimedia projects, and we need to be able to consider that evidence in some cases. But given how difficult and fraught it is to try to police users' activities elsewhere, the bar needs to be higher than simply "sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity". How to formulate a line about off-wiki harassment is something that needs its own sizable discussion, frankly (it's such an obvious element of the harassment discussion that I'd be shocked if there weren't a few already). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • حتما سيضعنا هذا الأمر في مأزق، عدد المساهمات المدفوعة وتضارب المصالح كبير جدا، مما يجعل حيادية الموسوعة في المحك، ووجود اللوبيات وجماعات الضغط وغيرها، والتي تجعل في كثير من الأحيان من الصعب تحييدها دون الكشف عن معلومات شخصية عنها وتتبعها للتقليل من التخريب وأدلجة الموسوعة، لكن من جهة أخرى الكشف عنها دون الحاجة قد يجعل من الأشخاص عرضة لعدة انتهكات --Nehaoua (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1: it must be added "unless such information is publicly available", like in any good Non Disclosure Agreement. For instance if the IP of a contribution leads to the US Congress, it may be said as anyone can trace it; if a user has previously revealed on WP or in a Tweet his identity, it may be used as well. JohnNewton8 (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2: I do not understand the point. In the example, User:A is legally responsible for having libelled User:B. User:B should take the case to court. WMF is not a court, and is not in charge of causing User:A to compensate for harm User:B. JohnNewton8 (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
بصورة عامة أنا ضد الكشف عن أي بيانات شخصية لأي سبب كان (ما خلا حالات ضيقة جداً جداً)، سأجيب على السؤال الثاني: الجواب هو لا، لا يمكن الكشف عن البيانات في هذه الحالة، كون الضرر حصل وكشف البيانات لن يؤدي إلى رده. ويكيبيديا ليست طرفاً في النزاعات القضائية ولا يجب أن تكون كذلك.
من الحلول المقترحة أيضاً تفعيل دور الرقابة المجتمعية على صفحات المحتوى فلا تجد التعديلات التخريبية طريقها إلى الموسوعة، وإن وجدت لا تضل طويلاً، فيكون تأثيرها محدوداً.--Michel Bakni (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnNewton8: The rules, as they stand, prohibit User:B from disclosing User:A's identity and will sanction him if he does so, yet to get the compensation due to him, the courts require User:B to disclose User:A's identity. Do you not see a contradiction here? Martinvl (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: sorry, still not. User:B can file a complaint without disclosing (and without knowing) user:A's real name. The courts will request WMF to disclose user:A's IP, and user:A's FAI to disclose user:B's real name. JohnNewton8 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

もちろん、嫌がらせとして個人情報を"doxing"するのは、非常に良くない行為です。 ただ私は、ウィキメディアが、私たちの国の裁判所や司法より上位にきてはならないと考えます。例えば、明らかな犯罪行為が犯された場合でも、私たちは自国の身近な警察や裁判所を頼れなくなってしまいます。 嫌がらせとしての"doxing"に対しては、相談窓口があると良いでしょう。--Kizhiya (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question1-2: 私はこの鋭い質問が公開された場合、私たちの国では、WikipediaとWMFが信頼を失うかもしれないと指摘します。WMFが、何か邪悪な意図を持った秘密結社のように考えられる可能性があります。 Kizhiya (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnNewton8:: I was assuming that User:B knows the identity of User:A. To recap, I was assuming further that User:A had libelled User:B, that as a result User:B had incurred a financial loss and that in order to recoup that loss, User:B had sued User:A directly in User:A's local courts on grounds that WMF could not (or would not) make good User:B's loss. In such cases, would WMF stand by and watch its no-doxing rules as they now stand being broken or would it sanction User:B thereby putting itself above the courts. Ideally UCoC should look at its rules and allow for the situation where they are unable to make good a financial loss. Martinvl (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to

Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' or 3:rd parties' private information, such as but not limited to name, place of employment or physical or email address, unless explicit consent of the affected person is available, or the action is obviously justified for other reasons.

Doxing of 3:rd parties must be prohibited too. Posting private information about people who never have edited any wiki is a common problem and must be addressed too. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making proposals for improvments, not only here also in the other sections. The purpose of written rules is, that everyone can check them and should then know what is allowed and prohibited. Considering that, your text has two problematic parts:
  • such as but not limited to That means there are other things but they are not mentioned here. If I have an information about you, that is not one of the mentioned types, then I still don't know if I may share that info. You can find a definition in the WMFs Privacy Policy: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Definitions Btw, "place of employment" is not mentioned there but here.
  • obviously justified for other reasons It is up to debate what is "obvious" and what are justifying reasons. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Taylor 49:: Are you suggesting that the statement "There is a fellow called Joe Biden. His address is '1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20500' " should be prohibitted? This information is available at en:White_House and is very much in the public domain. We need ot avoid simplistic rules otherwise we will run into these types of problems. The English WIkipedia already has guidelines for this sort of thing. Martinvl (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Martinvl: That's exactly why I added "the action is obviously justified for other reasons". Already solved. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And NO, exhaustivity is not a sane objective. You are not supposed to publish someone else's real name, current or former, physical address, current or former, place of employment, current or former, personal number, current or former, passport number, current or former, criminal record, complete or part of it, list of debts, complete or part of it, information about bank accounts, HIV-status, COVID-19-status, genome, complete or part of it, photo or video of the body, complete or part of it, fingerprint or print of some other body part, voice recording, drug consumption, other addictions, addiction-like behaviour or any other potentially problematic behavioral patterns, details on sex life or preferences, registration string and other details about the car, details about membership in political parties, labour unions, terror organizations and other problematic bodies, phone number, PIN and PUK for the SIM card, wiki passwords, PIN for the bank card, other passwords and access codes, body mass, shoe size, ... do you need an even longer list? Taylor 49 (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that every single editor who shared or discussed the recent press article describing an editor's ten-year hoax spree in Chinese Wikipedia on Twitter, Facebook or even in the pub violated the Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "sharing information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity". --Andreas JN466 11:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological manipulation


I would also like us to look at this section:

Current text

Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.


What is described here is indistinguishable from the process by which ordinary people everywhere seek to change each other's minds – except for the attribution of malice. If an editor seeks, e.g., to insert content into Wikipedia, in good faith, that violates some content policy that they don't understand or agree with, they will experience something which from their perspective will match exactly what is being described here: people – other Wikipedians – will want to cause them to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force them to behave the way they want – i.e. to stop inserting said content, which the editor may feel is vitally important to represent their world view. In such a situation, this passage will encourage them to attribute other Wikipedians' behaviour to malice. It is likely to further personalise content disputes. Do you agree that this section should be dropped? --Andreas JN466 18:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Psychological manipulation)


I would completly drop this paragraf: During the vote, several people complained about this part. I'm also unable to see the point why it is there at all. It's also an example of very high level English (maliciously, perception), which should be avoided. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions or senses is psychological manipulation, that should be out of question here. The problematic part is that about ‘understanding,’ since ‘causing someone to doubt their own understanding with the objective to win an argument’ is precisely what (academic) discussion and discourse are all about. This has to be re-worded at least. The intention behind this paragraph might have been to ban gaslighting, but with its current language, such an intention (if present) is not made very clear. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:58C5:FCC4:481D:C5BF 12:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to so much that I'm certain it'll be gamed/abused. E.g., the UCoC calls for "respect, civility [...] without expectations based on [...] sexual orientation, gender identity, [or] sex", but some people who don't "respect [...] gender identity" are known for saying promoting respect is a malicious authoritarian effort to cause them "to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding". So, is a user who maliciously misgenders others wrong (as various clauses suggest, and because such misgendering is "maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding"), or are people who object to it wrong for "causing [the misgenderer] to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding" in a way the user is motivated to assert is malicious? It's hard to write a rule about this that isn't applicable to all disagreement (motivating people to claim others are acting in bad faith, as Andreas notes) and/or liable to be abused; I think it might be better to drop this entirely. -sche (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The core here is "maliciously", without that, it's just normal reasoning. But detecting wilful maliciousness is hard enough in other edit categories with countless edge cases (hence AGF existing at all). When it comes to discussions on things like perceptions and senses, I'm struggling to see how we would detect maliciousness without the person already having crossed one or more other lines within the UCOC. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the whole thing hinges on "maliciously", then just ban "malicious behavior" and be done with it. Adding the rest doesn't seem to add anything and is verging on en:WP:BEANS. -- Ahecht (TALK
    ) 17:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • whether we just ban "malicious behaviour" or something more complicated, the key factor is the intent to do harm. It is very difficult in a WP ccontext to distinguish this from lesser degrees of undersiraable behavior,suchas harm from honest over-zealous behavior. It requires judgment of intent, and we have no wway of judging intent except in the most extreme of cases, for which we already haverules enough. DGG (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ahecht: I mean, yeah, and we could replace NPOV with "be neutral" but it helps to explain the various ways content is/isn't neutral (even if we don't write out every exception). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that I see an issue with this. Much of this document requires judgments about things like intent. In a world where you can say one thing and mean another (or say one thing and mean two things), this is pretty fundamental. Any one instance of possibly malicious manipulation can be AGFed, but that decreases the more evidence you have, and the wider variety of evidence you have. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites can you (or anyone, if you see this first) provide some examples where this malicious psychological manipulation was carried out but no other part of the UCOC was breached? I think that would help provide some basis for this discussion to focus on - once they're proved to exist, we can then tailor the phrasing to catch more equivalent cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that's a good basis for this discussion. Context is important. Even if a form of harassment only accompanies other forms of harassment, that doesn't mean it's not a form of harassment unto itself, or that it's not worth pulling out here. Remember that a code of conduct isn't just for people to read and say "I won't do that"; it's also for victims of harassment to put words to their experiences. The very nature of "psychological manipulation" makes it one of those things that may cause great distress for someone, even while they have a hard time pinning down and articulating the problematic behavior. This kind of manipulation is typically only even "effective" over a longer period of time, pointing again to the need to consider entire cases and context, including other evidence of harassment, rather than a diff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem I see with this passage is that it can be invoked by anyone who has lost an argument about what article content to include or exclude. It's human for a person to assume malice when they weren't able to get their way; this passage reinforces and legitimises that. I don't see how it helps, and can think of a number of ways in which it would be harmful. Andreas JN466 21:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • حالات كثيرة يدعي أصحابها أنهم تعرضوا لضغوط نفسية، حالت دون تمريرهم لفكرتهم (والتي قد تكون فعلًا غير مقبولة) ولكنهم بوجود مثل هذا البند يُمكنهم التحجج به وتوقيف أي مُناقش (خاصة إن كانوا محررين مخضرمين او إداريين) لا يوافقهم الرأي ويوجههم إلى سياسات التحرير وآداب النقاش وغيرها من الأمور التي قد لا يفقهونها أو لا يريدون ذلك --Nehaoua (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • أتفق مع إزالة هذا الجزء. لا يوجد حد واضح فاصل يحدد متى تكون المسألة تلاعباً بالرأي وكتة كون مساعدةً على بناء المعرفة. نحرص في ويكيبيديا على تأمين بيئة خالية من النظريات الهامشية والإشاعات والأخبار الكاذبة وهذا دورنا، ولكن دور القارئ أن يطور فكره النقدي ليكون قادراً على التصدي لهذه الأساليب. بخلاف ذلك، يمكن استعمال هذه الحجة لإغلاق قنوات التلفاز والإذاعة في كل مكان في العالم بحجة أنها قد تستخدم من قبل السياسيين أو التجار للتلاعب بالرأي العام. باختصار: تطوير الذات وشحذ العقل وامتلاك الفكر النقدي هو مسؤولية كل فرد.--Michel Bakni (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • أعتقد أنَّ هذا الجزء قد يُتخذ مدخلًا من طرف بعض المُتلاعبين أو أصحاب نظريَّة المُؤامرة لإلقاء اللائمة على المُجتمع الويكيبيدي أو على بعض أفراده بحُجَّة أنهم تعرَّضوا لضغوطات حالت دون تحريرهم بحُريَّة. وهي فئة موجودة بكثرة في أغلب المُجتمعات. لذا أُؤيِّد إزالته--باسم (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another related thought just struck me: Since the UCoC is also supposed to be apply to Main namespace, I think it should be made clear somewhere in the UCoC that the prime standard for content is w:Wikipedia:Verifiability (or some project-specific variant thereof). Otherwise there could (and probably would) be people trying to construe the UCoC as requiring the removal of (verifiably sourced) information of which they claim that it contradicts (for example) their religious beliefs, thus ‘causing [them] to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the [alleged] objective to win an argument.’ (So far, such claims could easily be dismissed by pointing out that the information in question is sufficiently sourced.) --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:1841:71F1:5036:836 09:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's precisely the sort of scenario I had in mind. This passage positively encourages people involved in content disputes to think, "They are doing this because they hate my scientific/religious/political belief." Not helpful towards resolving such disputes. Andreas JN466 17:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am logging into the English Wikipedia Three notifications were received The content has only two key points [1.Welcome to English Wikipedia],[2.I see that your native language is not English Encyclopedia in English may not be able to contribute You can go to Chinese Wikipedia.....]last night another administrator Notify with warning template[ *I found that you may not be able to use English:I saw you use English in the comment area text message other than We are here in English encyclopedia can you leave a message in english It's easier for us editors help you,We also need translators]These two notifications let me I feel like my words are not welcome =====Original text below Chinese/Hanja====我正在登錄英文維基百科收到三個通知內容只有兩個重點[1.歡迎來到英文維基百科],[2.我看到你的母語不是英文百科全英文可能無法投稿你可以 去中文維基百科.....]昨晚另一個管理員用警告模板通知[ *我發現你可能不會用英文:我看到你在評論區短信裡用英文除了我們在英文百科,你能不能用英文留言更方便我們編輯幫助你,我們也 需要翻譯]這兩個通知讓我覺得我的文字不受歡迎Ch.Jaguar (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section should be dropped. There is no way of knowing someone's internal state of mind, i.e. whether they're malicious or not. If you want to ban gaslighting, then describe it without resorting to unknowable things or undefined terms, and make sure your text clearly distinguishes between gaslighting and just plain discussion (the purpose of which is very often to change someone's mind). Silver hr (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff


(under "3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence"):

Current text

Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff:use of authority, knowledge, or resources at the disposal of designated functionaries, as well as officials and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia affiliates, to intimidate or threaten others.

This definition misses some clear cases of abuse and includes other cases that are clearly no abuse:

  • So when someone violates some rules and I warn him not to repeat that via "next time, I will block you", then I would threaten that user to use my authority and resources, therefore violating the UCOC myself.
  • When there is a user who didn't do anything wrong, but I don't like them so I block them, then it was not Abuse of office according to UCOC, because I did not "intimidate or threaten" to use my power to block, I just blocked them.

--Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Der-Wir-IngI support this argument, administrator because see my post in non-English just use the warning template warning! :found that the user is not using English to leave a message]content below completely different]:I hope you can leave a message in English So our editors to help you we need translators too.He didn't threaten with words but with template warning===我支持這個說法,我收到管理員用警告!!:發現該用戶不會使用英文留言下面的內容完全不同]:希望你能用英文留言所以 我們的編輯可以幫助您我們也需要翻譯。他沒有用言語威脅,而是用模板警告Ch.Jaguar (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Staff abuse)

  • I agree the present wording is not fit for purpose. It will cause unnecessary confusion and strife. At worst, it will encourage double standards, where some people will be punished for a certain behaviour while others are not. The ostensible rule infraction then becomes a mere pretext for sanctioning someone. We should not build such things into our disciplinary system. --Andreas JN466 12:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. I think the problem here is ‘intimidate or threaten.’ That is not what we want to get rid of when talking about abuse of (sysop or other) power. At least ‘threaten’ is misplaced (there may be a point for ‘intimidate,’ but only as one case of abuse). In my understanding, ‘use of authority, knowledge, or resources at the disposal of designated functionaries’ is abuse in cases where

  • a measure is outside the functionary-in-question’s discretion (e.g. blocking someone without a valid and sufficiently objective reason to do so)
  • or there is a conflict of interests (e.g. check-usering someone with whom the checkuser-in-question is in a dispute).

Threatening to use authority and so on in an abusive way may be abuse itself (especially against people who are not aware of the abusive nature of the measure they are being threatened with), and there may be other kinds of abusive use, but the aim here should be to define the modalities of abuse as precisely as possible. And abuse cannot be precisely defined without a notion or model of what intended or expected (not abusive) use is expected to look like. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:58C5:FCC4:481D:C5BF 12:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Andreas JN466 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both DWI & IP C5BF make some good points. I should also note, however, two problems with the conflict of interest one ("INVOLVED" should be included, in some form, but needs detail) - one is that most projects permit INVOLVED admin actions in certain circumstances (vandalism, rule of necessity etc) the other is that some projects have very few admins. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • فعلًا الأمر غير واضح ومتناقض في آن واحد، كثيرة هي الرسائل التي تُرسل للمستخدمين بالتهديد بالمنع في حالة عدم الاستجابة للسياسات أو متابعته أمام جهة أخرى (الشكوى إلى إدارى أو استدعاء طرف ثالث) فهل يُعد تنبيها أو تهديدا، يجب التمييز بينهما --Nehaoua (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Translaton from Google: In fact, the matter is not clear and contradictory at the same time. There are many messages that are sent to users threatening to ban in the event of failure to respond to policies or follow it up before another party (complaining to an administrator or summoning a third party). Is it considered a warning or a threat? A distinction must be made between them. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 09:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the present wording is not fit for purpose. A warning from a sysop ("if you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked"), or from any contributor ("if you infringe again en:WP:NPA, I will ask a sysop to draw the consequences") are fully acceptable, and even better than blocking without warning. My English is not the best, but may I suggest "unduly intimidate or threaten" (in French : "menacer ou intimider indûment") ? JohnNewton8 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC), sysop on fr-WP.[reply]
    Dictionary gives for French 'indûment' "without permission/right to do" but the English 'unduly' gives only "more than needed, excessivly".
    Well, every Admin has the technical right to block users, but in some wikis there are additonal rules that they are only allowed to do so, if someone violates other rules. Some projects don't have these additonal rules. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 09:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionnal comment: procedures do exist within the communities to get rid of an abusive sysop or of an user with a long established reputation, and they work. What is the procedure to avoid abuse from WMF? JohnNewton8 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning is not necessarily threatening, nor intimidating ; see this proposal which may be applicable on each wiki since it's interpretative and relying on existing rules. In other words, 'abuse' or 'misuse' should be defined by an appropriate policy, independently of this conduct line.

    Use of authority, knowledge, or resources at the disposal of designated functionaries, as well as officials and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia affiliates, in a way that is manifestly not in accordance with the applicable local rules and global policies.

    LD (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    هذا البند غير واضح، ويلزم تحديد ما هو التنبيه وما هو التنويه وما هي الملاحظة ما هي الإشارة ومتى تستعمل كل منها في صفحات نقاش المستخدمين
Change to

Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff: use of authority, knowledge, or resources at the disposal of designated functionaries, as well as officials and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia affiliates, to intimidate or threaten others or obstruct their work on a wiki project, unless this is needed in order to enforce the UCOC, and in such a case done only to the degree that is absolutely necessary for that purpose.

Taylor 49 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making proposals for improvments. The purpose of written rules is, that everyone can check them and should then know what is allowed and prohibited. Considering that, your text has two problematic parts:
  • There are many local policies that are not part of the UCOC and enforcing them by functonaries would automatically be abuse of power.
  • done only to the degree that is absolutely necessary Trolls and vandals would love that passage. In many cases it's correct to block an account, but not absolutely necessary: You could warn them first. And if they keep vandalizing, then it's still not absolutly necessary: You could warn them a second time.
I checked some real live laws about abuse of power. The ones that I found go like "a funktionary does something without having the permission" That only works because in real live, there is usually a law with a list of things that the functonary is allowed to to. We don't have these lists on our projects. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibiting retaliation


I don't know where I should address this, but I think something like "Retaliating against those who have filed a complaint is prohibited" should be included in somewhere. Retaliation can take different forms including, but not limited to, ignoring. If an accuser is a non-advance rights holder and files a complaint against an advance right holder, it will cause an issue in a small wiki with a small number of advance rights holders if the accused decides to ignore all legitimate wiki editing-related requests from the accuser. --AppleRingo777 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this proposal. Anti-retaliation measures are a must. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could have unintended consequences. Consider the case where User:A makes an derogatory comments about User:B which User:B ignores. User:B that reverts something that User:A has written. User:A then accuses User:B of "retalliation" for User:A's comments. The wording must be done very carefully to avoid this sort of situation. Martinvl (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're volunteers. You cannot force anyone to respond to a request, nor can you sanction someone for ignoring a request. Vexations (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prohibiting retaliation, more or less means forcing someone to forgiveness. Good luck with that. I don't know how you would be able to enforce these rules, even how would you know for sure (!) 'why' someone is ignoring you. Also, there is a big difference between
  • false, but plausible accusations,
  • false and made up accusations,
  • correct and plausible accusations and
  • correct but unplausible accusations or correct accusation with made up reasoning.
I was confronted with all of them (Yea, even I made some mistakes: misspellings, blocked wrong guy,....) What I really dislike, are false, made up accusations, especially if they are made public. But usually that backfires for the accusing person, not because of me, but because everyone else finds out. No problem at all, are false but plausible accusations, especially when they first confronted me personally instead of accusing me publicly: I always had an easy explanation and we both were happy the accusations turned out to be false. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 12:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prohibiting retaliation is not as difficult as you claim. Example: If you report someone, and they block you without you having broken any rules, they're retaliating. Such actions may be rare, but they should still be forbidden. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to define the term "designated functionaries"


Please define the words "designated functionaries" so that we know who would be subjected to this particular article; and that we can avoid to subject a certain group of people to unwarranted accusations. In addition, the word "designated" implies that there are also functionaries who are "not designated" as well. Who are those "designated functionaries" exactly? Who would designate them? We need to be on the same page so that we won't unintentionally create a breeding ground to promote false accusations with the undefined terminology. Please also read: Defining the term "functionaries". --AppleRingo777 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 — Introduction


Current text:

Actions that contradict the Universal Code of Conduct can result in sanctions.

I think your intro should clarify that UCOC enforcement is mandatory on all local wikis. Sooner or later, someone's going to say that the Enforcement Guidelines are "only guidelines", and that they "don't have to" enforce the UCOC if they don't want to. I suggest changing the above text to, "Actions that contradict the Universal Code of Conduct, including refusal to enforce it, can result in sanctions." Adrianmn1110 (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Intro)

  • I think that the word "contradict" should be replaced by the word "contravene". Having said that, I am concerned that the authros of the UCoC have not taken into account the power of local courts - for example, a local court might order an editor/administrator who lives within the jurisdiction of that court to divulge the identity of another editor. Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adrianmn1110 if I refuse to sanction someone, because I disagree with the UCOC, your proposal is that I, myself, be sanctioned? You are aware that as both an editor and an administrator I'm under zero obligation to make any specific action? If I do make an activity, I'm obliged to meet en:WP:ADMINACCT, and I need to make some minimal level of activity as an admin, but the communities are ardently against ceasing to be volunteers. A huge amount of complaints were made about even needing to affirm and adhere to the affirmation clause. I cannot imagine the scale of blowback were you to propose that anyone failing to enforce it would immediately be sanctioned. Forget local courts interfering, your proposal strips Wikimedia of the underlying facet of our creation. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine the nightmare that would result from requiring police officers to enforce all laws, always, against everyone, to the maximum extent of the law. We'd all be in prison, even the police officers. Vexations (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nosebagbear Thank you for your feedback, but it's not my proposal. Mandatory enforcement is already a part of the UCOC Enforcement Guidelines. It's under "Systematic failure to follow the UCoC". I'm just saying that part should also be in the policy text. At any rate, I know that compulsory enforcement is opposed by some people. But if we don't have compulsory enforcement, we might end up with another Fram Incident, in which complaints about problematic editors are consistently ignored.[1][2][3][4][5][6] I consider protests to be the lesser of two evils. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is systematic failure by projects - projects can't be sanctioned in their own right, as they are a space and not part of new and experienced contributors, functionaries within the projects, event organizers and participants, employees and board members of affiliates and employees and board members of the Wikimedia Foundation - the systematic failure section is "just" that the U4C would act as a body that would act in those circumstances listed. However, Actions that contradict the Universal Code of Conduct, including refusal to enforce it, can result in sanctions doesn't specify projects - so it would apply to the same people as the "actions that contradict the UCOC" - which is every editor. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That is systematic failure by projects" Based on the exact words written, the Enforcement Guidelines seem to be describing people and projects. Since a project is only a space, and not a person, how can it make "consistent local decisions that conflict with the UCoC"? How can it "refuse" to enforce the UCOC? Decision-making and refusal are both human actions. "Lack of will to address issues" is also listed as a failure to follow the UCOC. Since a project has no sentience, wouldn't it be redundant to describe its lack of will? It makes more sense to apply that description to people. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitly against this addition! Excuse me, user:Adrianmn1110, but shall I have to stick 24/7 on my keyboard to take actions and thus avoid your "sanction"? I get no salary for contributing in the project, and I claim the right not to act when I decide not to. JohnNewton8 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ar: أعتقد أن المدونة هي فعلا إرشادات وفي الكثير من البنود التي تحتاج لتوضيح وأقلمة مع سياسات المجتمع المحلي وكذلك القوانين والتشريعات المعمول بها والتي قد تكون متناقضة مع المدونة في بعض تفاصيلها، فكيف يجدر بي تطبيقها في حالة التناقض لأنه في كلتا الحالتين سأعاقب

en:I suppose that the Universal Code of Conduct is really guidelines and in numerous the particulars that need to be clarified and acclimated to the code of the local community as well as the applicable laws and legislation in the country of residence of the subject, which may contradict the law in some of its details, so how should I apply it in case of contradiction because in both cases I'll be penalized if I do not respect one of them Nehaoua (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have an example how exactly this could happen? I guess insulting people is bad in every country in the world, so it's probably not insults. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
يتعلق الأمر بتعريف الإهانة، فليس كل المجتمعات لها نفس التعريف، ونحن هنا نريد عقاب أحدهم بحجة الإهانة Nehaoua (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to

Actions that contravene the Universal Code of Conduct, including persistent refusal to enforce it, can result in sanctions.

No single sysop has a duty to intervene in a single particular case. You can abstain from a single case without having to give "hard reaons" for doing so. But if the sysop is active, repeatedly blocks users expressing opinions different from eirs, or just blocks ordinary vandals, but refuses to block users violating the UCOC in a particular manner (for example by transphobic harassment), then YES, this sysop does violate the UCOC and must be removed. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using "persistent refusal" as the only standard would be too restrictive. A single refusal to enforce the UCOC could be so grossly unreasonable that it warrants a sanction. Furthermore, some sysops will let their friends get away with violating the UCOC while sanctioning editors they dislike (for the same violations). If I had to change my suggestion above, I would change it to this:

    Actions that contravene the Universal Code of Conduct, including persistent, unfair, or unreasonable refusal to enforce it, can result in sanctions.

Adrianmn1110 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the good point in your proposal. The problem is that a wiki sysop is a volunteer, whereas a police officer, judge or executioner is a paid worker. I do not think that a single sysop ever has a duty to act (within a specified time). However, if none of the listed sysops acts, then the problem MUST be eligible for the U4C. And if it turns out that a single sysop or the complete bunch on a project act in a "unfair" or "selective" way then they should be removed (but not necessarily hanged).

Active actions that contravene the Universal Code of Conduct as a rule result in sanctions. Failure or refusal to enforce it can result in loss of advaced rights or further sanctions only if the person in charge acts in an unreasonable, unfair or selective way.

Taylor 49 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator who knows zero about copyright law may selectively avoid taking any action where copyright is involved. That could apply to any particular area of policy, or any particular aspect of a code of conduct. An admin who does not feel competent in blocking, or who feels uncomfortable with blocking, may selectively limit their work to other tasks. Not only are proposals for sanctions here contrary to VOLUNTEER, they perversely demand people work in areas where they may lack competence or understanding. If an an entire wiki is found to be systematically dysfunctional it may be necessary for the global community to step in to remedy the situation, potentially so far as to replacing an entire admin corp. However it would be perverse to sanction an administrator for either disagreeing on the appropriate outcome in a particular case, or to sanction them for responsibly refraining from taking an action where they feel incompetent to do so. Alsee (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alsee. This is particlarly true in the case of legal actions. There was a case a few years ago when an editor was blocked on the EN Wikipedia for "making legal threats" when anybody who had done a single course in law would have seen that there were no legal threats. The editor who was was blocked threatend to go to the press - he was a Nobel laureate and retired Cambridge professor. Had Arbcom not promptly readmitted him, Wikipedia would have been the laughing stock to the world. Martinvl (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why Taylor 49 said "can result in loss of advanced rights or further sanctions", not "will". The U4C would have to apply discretion to each individual case. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... that's the "bad laws are not a problem because judges have discretion" argument. Nothing can possibly go wrong. Vexations (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman. I didn't say bad rules aren't a problem, and I didn't say nothing will go wrong. I pointed out that the U4C would have discretion under Taylor 49's proposal. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... or that the authors of the law recognised that they cannot possibly foresee all possible scenarios so they provided a "get out" clause to allow for what they might or could not have foreseen. Martinvl (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a new rule that sanctions behaviour I don't like with bans. I give a very poor definition of such behaviours. People object to my new rule, and point out that enforcing it will lead to sanctioning people who haven't done anything wrong. I don't rewrite my rule, but instead say, well, you know, we'll give the enforcers discretion to not enforce it. Should I be fired from rule-writing? Hell yes. Vexations (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either you've never heard of Framgate, or you completely failed to learn anything from it. Not enforcing civility in the short run led to bigger problems in the long run. Two mainstream media outlets even reported on the incident. Taylor 49 and I had to word our suggestions in a way that could be interpreted flexibly. We could've said, "Functionaries must enforce the UCOC at least three times per calendar month." But then, they could revert vandalism three times per month while ignoring severe harassment. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, spare me from the usual "we're all volunteers" argument. Volunteering to hold advanced permissions doesn't entitle you to keep holding them in the future. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned plenty from Framgate. We just came to different conclusions. Your takeaway seems to be that not enforcing civility leads to bigger problem. One of my conclusions was that enforcing civility by policing behaviour and sanctioning people doesn't work. You can't create a welcoming, inclusive community by punishing everyone who behaves like an asshole. We agree that letting bad behaviour fester leads to problems. But I'd like to add that once you've arrived at a point where you feel you need to resort to sanctions, you have already failed, because everybody just sat around waiting for someone else to do something. If you want a less toxic environment, you need to empower everyone to act, not just a few people. The community should not relinquish its responsibility for its own culture. But that's what these calls for policing of speech accomplish. Vexations (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"One of my conclusions was that enforcing civility by policing behaviour and sanctioning people doesn't work." How did you come to that conclusion? Fram only got away with his conduct for so long because he wasn't policed closely enough. By ArbCom's own admission, they didn't do anything about him in 2016 and 2018 when they had the chance. No wonder his last accuser went straight to the Wikimedia Foundation. "You can't create a welcoming, inclusive community by punishing everyone who behaves like an asshole." Maybe not, but you can use blocks to prevent them from assing or holing. "If you want a less toxic environment, you need to empower everyone to act, not just a few people." How do you suggest doing that? Make everyone a sysop? The current sysops might protest about losing their social status. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way to handle assholes is by not acting like asshole yourself and express your disapproval of assholery without engaging in the same. Individual members of the community will be reluctant to act when there is some higher authority they can appeal to, anonymously if need be. That results in a low-trust environment where nothing is said but much is prohibited. That is neither safe nor welcoming for anyone. Adding more policing and secretive investigations just makes that worse. But I can see where this is going: we're going to implement something police-like. If we find later that it didn't work, we'll hire more police, not rethink what we've done. I don't want to be a part of that. The creation and implementation of the UCoC has exhausted my motivation to contribute. Vexations (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The way to handle assholes is by not acting like [an] asshole yourself and express your disapproval of assholery without engaging in the same." How would that stop people who don't care about public opinion? "Individual members of the community will be reluctant to act when there is some higher authority they can appeal to" Since you're speculating, I'll do the same. I think, without someone to appeal to, people are even less likely to act. They'll worry about retaliation because they have no one to protect them. "That is neither safe nor welcoming for anyone." It would be more safe and welcoming than letting serial bullies do what they want without getting blocked. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed how, in the past few years, public discourse has become coarser? Does it seem plausible to you that this has something to do with how public figures use aggressive, discriminatory and degrading language that signals that violence against people you disagree with is OK? Does is seem likely that the increased harassment and abuse that members of minority groups have had to suffer is enabled and encouraged by those same public figures who stand to benefit from stirring up discord? And have you noticed how the moderation policies of the social media platforms where this abuse takes place have utterly failed to reverse that trend? If I conclude that it's not possible to fix toxic discourse with policing, that's more than mere speculation.
Everyone needs to accept some level of responsibility in creating saner, healthier conversations. Am I never going to say something that offends someone? I'm pretty sure I will, and already have. Does that make me a bully? Perhaps someone might see it that way. But I'd prefer that the person who takes offence lets me know how what I did affected them and lets me have an opportunity to make it right, instead of calling the cops. Wouldn't it be nice if we could "implement" the assumption of good faith and codify that as: "If I did something that you have a problem with, please come to me first before seeking sanctions". I don't see that in the UCoC. Vexations (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"And have you noticed how the moderation policies of the social media platforms where this abuse takes place have utterly failed to reverse that trend?" So what makes you think the solution is less policing rather than more? Is it possible that, without those policies, people would be even more toxic than they already are? Is it possible that some mods don't enforce policies that already exist? "If I conclude that it's not possible to fix toxic discourse with policing, that's more than mere speculation." That's not what I'm talking about, though. You said, "Individual members of the community will be reluctant to act when there is some higher authority they can appeal to". That's speculation. "Everyone needs to accept some level of responsibility in creating saner, healthier conversations." Obviously, but you still haven't answered my question: How is "expressing disapproval" going to work against people who don't care what others think? Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a psychologist, but I'd say that most people are sensitive to individual responses that aggregate to produce a group-level pattern of norms. I'm not aware of an effective treatment for psychopathy. People who are thus afflicted may need to find another hobby. It is most unfortunate that some of those people are immensely popular, but you can't fix that with legislation. An empathic response, as I understand the literature, yields much better results. Vexations (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd say that most people are sensitive to individual responses that aggregate to produce a group-level pattern of norms." Even if that were true, we'd need a way to deal with the few who aren't. "I'm not aware of an effective treatment for psychopathy. People who are thus afflicted may need to find another hobby." Good luck getting them to find another hobby without blocking them. "It is most unfortunate that some of those people are immensely popular, but you can't fix that with legislation." You can't reduce their popularity with legislation, but you can sure block them from abusing others. Once again, how would expressing disapproval stop people who don't care what others think, from being aggressive? Adrianmn1110 (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you: It doesn't work with psychopaths. I prefer to see people as generally sane and acting in good faith. True psychopaths are rare. I'm opposed to generalizing a pathology and treating everyone accordingly. Yes, some folks are so disruptive that they'll have to leave. I called that "find another hobby": We implement that as a ban. But let's not treat everyone as if have a personality disorder, shall we? Vexations (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I just told you: It doesn't work with psychopaths." That's why I suggested an option to sanction functionaries who don't do their job, which they volunteered for, with all its responsibilities. Because "psychopaths", as you describe them, don't care if other people disapprove of their behavior. You can only get rid of them by blocking them, which only functionaries can do. "But let's not treat everyone as if [they] have a personality disorder, shall we?" When did I do anything remotely similar to that? Adrianmn1110 (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you didn't mean to suggest that. But what you're proposing has that outcome. I've wasted to much time on this. I'm sorry I couldn't explain my views better. I don't want to live in the world that the UCoC supporters want to create, so good luck and farewell. You can have the last word. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"But what you're proposing has that outcome." I can live with that. Wikimedia's current enforcement of civility could (and should) be improved.[7][8][9][10][11][12]. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]