Jump to content

Wikimedia Foundation/Legal/Community Resilience and Sustainability/Conversation Hour 2025 04 24

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Update sent to Wikimedia-l: There will be a special panel of guests from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) to provide insight into their first year, the first Universal Code of Conduct annual review, and answer community questions about the UCoC. While we will not be answering questions about other topics live during the conversation, please note all questions unrelated to the UCoC will be answered in writing in the notes to be published on Meta-wiki.

You are invited to the quarterly Conversation hour led by Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience and Sustainability, on 24 April 2025 at 18:00 UTC.

Maggie and others from the Community Resilience and Sustainability team will discuss Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Committee Support, and Human Rights.

This conversation will happen on Zoom. If you are a Wikimedian in good standing (not Foundation or community banned), write to let us know you will be attending the conversation and share your questions at answers@wikimedia.org at least one hour before the conversation. Please place “CR&S” in the subject line. Someone will follow up with the Zoom details.

If you do choose to participate in this conversation, Maggie would like to bring some expectations to your attention:

I can't and won't discuss specific Trust and Safety cases. Instead, I can discuss Trust and Safety protocols and practices and approaches as well as some of the mistakes we've made, some of the things I'm proud of, and some of the things we're hoping to do.

I will not respond to comments or questions that are disrespectful to me, to my colleagues, or to anyone in our communities. I can talk civilly about our work even if you disagree with me or I disagree with you. I won't compromise on this.

You may view the conversation on YouTube and submit questions live in Zoom and on YouTube.

The recording, notes, and answers to questions not answered live will be available after the conversation ends, usually in one week. Notes from previous conversations can be found on Meta-wiki.

Notes

[edit]
  • I’m thinking about running for a seat. What about being on the U4C is different than you expected? Harder? What would you tell a person who might want to join to expect?
    • Luke: Once we set up the process, and we were open for cases, I expected fewer cases. We are only 8 people and there is a lot of work to do. We had some people working on the annual review. I prefer to work on cases. It fits well that everyone can do the work they like and we can work together as a team.
    • Civvì: I foresaw the amount of work. Sometimes it feels like a part time job. Everybody can find something they like, but the risk is there may be something no one wants to do. If someone wants to run, they must consider the time they have.
    • 0xDeadbeef: I had a similar experience about the volume of work. Currently on Meta-wiki we have 9 open requests in addition to the private requests we receive via email. The caseload is considerable.
    • Luke: We currently have 8 members and the U4C could be up to sixteen members. The work we have now could be split between more members. Some conflicts are so complex and require a lot of attention. Translation tools are helpful but sometimes you have to dig into the culture of the community and the global movement.
    • Ghilt: We are hoping to have more candidates especially from regions where we do not have representation on the U4C. It would be nice to have advisors as well so they could learn.
    • 0xDeadbeef: Right now we are in the annual review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Right after, we will go into the candidacy phase.
    • Luke: There have been changes to the Charter which should yield more candidates.
  • What do UCoC meetings look like? How do you make sure discussions are complete?
    • Luke: It’s a lot of writing because scheduling meetings are difficult due to the timezone differences. A lot of online discussions. It was really great to meet everyone in person at the meeting earlier this year and in my opinion, it improves the way you work together once you get to know the person. We discussed a lot of topics and processes. We had to construct all the processes. We learned a lot from ArbComs and we looked at a lot of proposals from the U4C members to adjust for the U4C.
    • Civvì: Meeting in person was incredibly productive. It was 3 days of hard work but incredibly useful. It helps to know the person and it helps with online communication. It’s easier to know what the person is meaning through typing once you get to know each other. Every time we try to set up a meeting, it’s easier to not meet because of the timezone challenges, but it works.
    • 0xDeadbeef: Our synchronous meetings are sometimes difficult to conduct. It makes us have asynchronous meetings afterwards so everyone can participate before we go forward with decisions. We use a lot of written communication. We make sure the discussions are complete by notifying the people who have not participated in the discussion to make sure they have reviewed.
  • Has being on the U4C changed your perspective on Wikimedia at all?
    • Ghilt: Absolutely. We have looked into lots of language and projects and we have met a lot of people and read the local guidelines and rules. You get a broader perspective.
    • Luke: There are projects with one or two administrators and it’s different than larger projects. There are small projects where someone is making all the decisions because they can and not because they should. There are more cases of that than I expected. It’s always interesting to know information about small projects.
    • Civvì: I think the most interesting thing is to see how the external factors impact our work. The legislation or the conflict in a country spills over into the projects. I like to understand why some projects have or do not have certain guidelines.
  • What is the one key requirement for one to volunteer in the U4C and when are applications open for interested people?
    • Luke: The community requires some experience with ArbComs or similar. That is helpful. If you know about working in teams, that is helpful. The U4C can decide a lot but you cannot do it on your own. You have to work together to find a solution that works for everyone. We need to be team players. I guess it’s good to know from a few wikiprojects how they work. The basics are most likely the same.
    • Civvì: Creativity is useful. When we get a case, sometimes it’s the first and we need to think outside of the box instead of just following guidelines from English projects. Think about what we need to do and find out with creative thinking.
    • Luke: It’s good to have stamina. For example, if it’s a 10 person conflict you have to read all the perspectives and contributions. You have to do it well so you can summarize and share the information with your colleagues. Everyone cannot reach every conflict so you have to trust your colleagues.
    • 0xDeadbeef: The call for new candidate applications for the U4C will occur after the vote closes on the annual review.
  • Some people in my community are discussing if we should make an arbitration committee. We think maybe it can help us solve some problems by ourselves, not needing outside help. Until now, we never had this kind of committee. I saw that some arbitration committees have strong authority, but some do not. Also, some have close cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation, and others seem more separate. Since you have experience with the U4C, may I ask if you have any suggestions for us?
    • Luke: If you are a smaller wiki community with only a few administrators, an Arbitration Committee is a good idea because people can investigate the conflicts and develop solutions. ArbCom roles differ between communities. I recommend a committee that could make some decisions and overturn administrators. Regarding cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation, I would recommend you make a committee and establish processes and get some experience. If that committee investigates cases and issues, it can make a great difference. It’s good if people come with a conflict that escalates, but it’s better to have an opportunity to fix it before it escalates too much. Sometimes it can go too far and it’s not easy to make a good solution. If a person then wants to hurt another person, then there is no good conflict resolution.
    • 0xDeadbeef: From the U4C perspective, we’d love to see other communities develop ArbComs. We would not have jurisdiction in communities with processes to handle UCoC violations where they are able to handle such violations. The individual ArbCom responsibilities depend on what the local communities need. There may be gaps in processes or conflicts between users. Setting up an ArbCom can be a solution to conflicts and it depends on what specific needs a community has.
    • Ghilt: The advanate of having an ArbCom is the local community knows the community better than the U4C. The sooner you can solve a conflict, the better it is.
    • Civvì: We are seeing reduced availability to be an administrator. One year ago in the Italian Wikipedia, we set up an ArbCom, and now we have elections. If you do not have enough people who want to be on ArbCom, it may be difficult for an ArbCom to be sustainable. There has to be a minimum dimension. I do not know what that is.
    • Luke: If there is a working ArbCom in the community, they know more things about the community. If the ArbCom does not work, then the U4C can step in.
  • If a volunteer finds out that leaders of a Wikimedia User Group are misusing funds, and when the volunteer asks questions, the leaders retaliate by removing them from the team to hide what’s going on — who is supposed to help that volunteer? What if the volunteer feels that the User Group’s approach to removing them from the team (a termination letter) is meant to damage the volunteer’s reputation or block them from future opportunities in the movement and that the leaders and staff of the User Group are silencing challengers?
    • Civvì: It’s difficult to give an answer to this question without more background and more data. This is not an answer we can give in this moment.
    • Luke: You can send us an email with the details and we can give you our first impression to consider if we are responsible or not.
    • Ghilt: It depends on what kind of group it is.
      • Emails can go to u4c{{@}}wikimedia.org
  • There are systemic problems around representation on Wikipedia and it’s more difficult on some wikis. Because content so closely links to personal identities, do you ever see the UCoC getting involved in content discussions?
    • Ghilt: Generally article content is not our business, but if it violates the UCoC, it becomes our business.
    • Luke: Say, someone is writing fake news, then you are on the line if something is neutral or fake news or whatever. It is challenging to find the right way.
  • Clarification: Okay, I wanted to know if some one who feels being abused by people who carry themselves as senior Wikimedians and hold high positions such as executive directors reach out to the U4C for help? ​​For instance, the executive director doesn't like a volunteer and decides to sideline him and deny him certain opportunities within the local community. Does the U4C handle such cases?
    • Civvì: This sounds like this might be something for AffCom given you mention an executive director.
    • Luke: In the end, we are not sure. You can write us an email with the information so we can consider who might be responsible for reviewing the situation.
  • What would you like to see for the next year for the U4C?
    • Ghilt: More candidates especially from regions without representation from the last election. Please submit your candidacy.
    • Luke: I agree. More candidates would be awesome so we could distribute the workload. We can make things better by being a U4C member. I hope for interesting cases as well.
    • 0xDeadbeef: Yes, a bigger committee is one of our priorities. I would also want us to have more clearly defined procedures to help us run smoothly and handle cases with better expectations on how we should handle it from start to finish.
    • Civvì: I would like more members and help the community restore their peace so they can do their work in a peaceful environment.
  • Anything we didn’t cover in the questions?
    • Luke: Originally I was curious about the U4C and I was a bit naive to think there would not be that many cases. I thought 8 would be easier than sixteen members because there would be fewer people to discuss and compromise, but I changed my mind once I knew the workload. I hope people join to make the movement better with the possibilities we have. I want to give thanks to my colleagues on the U4C. I have learned about other wikis I have never heard of before. It was interesting to learn a lot about the movement and work together to try to resolve or reduce conflict escalation. As I was elected for a 1 year term, I hope I can continue this journey.
  • Maggie: I just want to thank the Committee for being here and just being the Committee. It is difficult work and I truly appreciate your partnership in the community. I hope we can make the community a better place.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability/Conversation_Hour_2025_04_24&oldid=28671629"