Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion

This page contains discussion topics for the Universal Code of Conduct community consultation from April–May 2021. For more information, see the 2021 consultations page and the Universal Code of Conduct overview.

View or translate summary report

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking input about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct.

The goal of this consultation is to help outline clear enforcement pathways for a drafting committee to design proposals for a comprehensive community review later this year. The proposals may integrate with existing processes or additional pathways that may be suggested. For more information about the UCoC project, see Universal Code of Conduct overview.

Ongoing discussions should be listed at the 2021 consultations page.

Please add comments below and let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Consultation structure

There are five topics with several questions to help start conversations. Feedback provided will have a significant impact on the draft for enforcement guidelines that will be prepared following the comment period.

• Please do not feel obligated to answer every question, focusing on what is important or impactful. We understand giving opinions on this topic can be difficult.
• While it will be necessary to describe experiences in a general way, these discussions are not the place to re-visit previously decided matters which should be handled at a more appropriate location.
• Each topic has several questions to help understand how the Universal Code of Conduct might interface with different communities.
• For answers to some frequently asked questions, please see this page.

Please note: If you wish to report a specific incident, please use existing pathways. If that is not an acceptable pathway, outlining in more general terms why the existing process does not work will be useful. Please avoid sending incident reports or appeals to facilitators or organizers. The people organizing discussions are not the staff that handle specific abuse reports or appeals and are not able to respond in that capacity.

Community Support

1. How can the effectiveness of anti-harassment efforts be measured?
2. What actions can be taken and what structures should be available to support those being targeted by harassment and those that respond to conduct issues?
3. What formal or informal support networks are available for contributors? What is necessary for these groups to function well, and what challenges are there to overcome?
4. What additional opportunities are there to deliver effective support for contributors? What would be useful in supporting communities, contributors, targets of harassment, and responders?

Reporting Pathways

1. How can reporting pathways be improved for targets of harassment? What types of changes would make it more or less challenging for users to submit appropriate reports?
2. What is the best way to ensure safe and proper handling of incidents involving i) vulnerable people; ii) serious harassment; or iii) threats of violence?
3. In your experience, what are effective ways to respond to those who engage in behaviours that may be considered harassment?
4. In what ways should reporting pathways provide for mediation, reform, or guidance about acceptable behaviours?

Managing Reports

1. Making reporting easier will likely increase the number of reports: in what ways can the management of reports be improved?
2. What type of additional resources would be helpful in identifying and addressing harassment and other conduct issues?
3. Are there human, technical, training, or knowledge-based resources the Foundation could provide to assist volunteers in this area?
4. How should incidents be dealt with that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them, such as in-person or online meetings?

Handling Reports

1. In what ways should reports be handled to increase confidence from affected users that issues will be addressed responsibly and appropriately?
2. What appeal process should be in place if participants want to request a review of actions taken or not taken?
3. When private reporting options are used, how should the duty to protect the privacy and sense of safety of reporters be balanced with the need for transparency and accountability?
4. What privacy controls should be in place for data tracking in a reporting system used to log cross-wiki or persistent abusers?

Global Questions

1. How should issues be handled where there is no adequate local body to respond, for example, allegations against administrators or functionary groups?
2. In the past, the global movement has identified projects that are struggling with neutrality and conduct issues: in what ways could a safe and fair review be conducted in these situations?
3. How would a global dispute resolution body work with your community?

Discussion

Community Support

How can the effectiveness of anti-harassment efforts be measured?

Maybe it shouldn't? Possibly the risk might be high that only successful efforts are being recorded or on the other hand, successful attempts will not be measured at all, because they "were successful"? And the success is probably more or less subjective? Hence I would be afraid, that the effectiveness might be biased? And how would local efforts be recordable in the first place? Needn't the question be, "Assuming the effectivesness is measurable, which scale will be appropriate?" To which the answer could possibly be: questionnaire with numbers, questionnaire with full text, success yes/no (but the question of success is probably as I mentioned above biased)... Maybe the processes and their outcome could be publicly recorded summarized, without "measuring"? --HirnSpuk (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

What actions can be taken and what structures should be available to support those being targeted by harassment and those that respond to conduct issues?

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that of civility. Should a dispute break out, the concept of civility demands that everybody be given an opportunity to puty their opinion. The ANI process used in the English Wikipedia (and elsewhere) is prone to misuse, especially where a group of editors are targetting a single editor when the process can degenerate into mob justice. The one single way in which this process can be reformed is to give any editor the right to edit unless a clearly defined complaint has been made against them and they have had an adequate opportunty to respond to that complaint. Not only will that bring the complaints procedure into line with the concept of civility, but since Wikipedia offers a public service, will bring Wikipedia into line with the Law of the State of California (See Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists (1974) "Conclusion ... one obligation flowing from this "public service" status is that defendant organizations may not reject an application without affording the applicant a fair opportunity to answer the charges against him.") In the case of the English Wikipedia such structures already exist for Sockpuppet allegations and for Arbcom proceedings. Martinvl (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the "ANI-process". I think a "central committee for each language" (see below) would be a good idea here also. I would think (if feasible) it should be recruited partly from the communities and partly from wikimedia. Also a public space should be available where the chrages and the answer to the charges should be freely accessible, though I would think it would be not a good idea to do this "wiki-style". A clear step-process would be helpful how long and/or to what extent local communities are responsible by themselfs. --HirnSpuk (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s important to consider not only harassment of editors in the community, but harassment indirectly caused by article content – specifically when an deals with sensitive, identity-related issues such as race, religion and ethnicity. Bias can be subtle. There should be a feedback structure appropriate for someone in that identity-group to report possible divisive content or unconscious bias which could lead to harassment. This is a grey-area where subtle content issues could transition into harassment issues. Based on this, an Arbitration Committee could be used as a specific content disputes for higher-traffic pages that address identity topic. Or possibly a structure like Facebook’s Oversight Board, which delegates sensitive matters like this to a separate, independent board. Zukisama (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Another idea: Could this be grounds for a WikiProject? It is not necessarily a "topic area", but it would have a definite purose. The project's goal might be to detect and correct unconscious bias (or obvious bias) in articles deemed as culturally sensitive (race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc). --Zukisama (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

From a reading of different discussion threads especially in the subject area of religion, what I’ve seen is that editors with unpopular opinions often get targeted and dogpiled in discussion threads. Wikipedia is not a safe environment to make propositions of changes that may introduce a viewpoint found in reliable sources that has not been previously covered in the article content. Truly neutral and unbiased editors should be given the authority to judge in harassment cases, especially when an editor is being silenced by arbitrary blocking or sanctions.Coffeebreak80s (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Coffeebreak80s:I have seen this, too. The social / editor hierarchy that forms around a mature article can lock in bias and prevent dissenting opinions. In the case of identity-related groups like religions, article content by consensus may still result in negative content appearing in the article. Due to negativity bias, a small amount can have a large effect. The UCOC is an effort of the WMF against harassment and hate speech. Doesn't it make sense to start by providing truly unbiased entries for the entries most sensitive to hate crimes and harassment?

Reporting Pathways

How can reporting pathways be improved for targets of harassment? What types of changes would make it more or less challenging for users to submit appropriate reports?

Moment mal. Im UCOC steht "Actions that contradict the Universal Code of Conduct can result in sanctions. These may be imposed by designated functionaries (as appropriate in their local context) and/or by the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms." Bevor es um die Ausgestaltung eines Meldeverfahrens geht, wäre zu klären: Meldung an wen eigentlich? Der UCOC lässt das völlig offen ("and/or"). Geht es hier um Meldungen an ein neu geschaffenes interntional besetztes Gremium, oder an die Foundation, oder Meldungen jeder Art? Gibt es eine konkurrierende Zuständigkeit, kann der Meldende selbst wählen, an wen er sich wendet? Oder ist eine Art höhere, Einspruchs-, Beschwerdeinstanz beabsichtigt? Davon hängt die beste Form eines Meldeverfahrens in kritischer Weise ab.

Wesentlich für das Verfahren ist für mich, dass die Meldung an jeweilige Muttersprachler geht und durch Muttersprachler der jeweiligen Sprache entschieden wird; hier geht es um die Beurteilung ausschließlich sprachlicher Äußerungen und ggf. Bedeutungsnuancen und subtile Beleidigungen oder Herabsetzungen. Wenn es möglich ist, den eigenen Fall vor ein international besetztes Gremium einzubringen, dessen Arbeitssprache mutmaßlich Englisch sein wird, ist m.E. kein faires Verfahren gewährleistet. Ggf. wird nur erfahrenen Benutzern eine zusätzliche Möglichkeit geboten, ihnen nicht genehme lokale Entscheidungen doch noch auszuhebeln, was ja ggf. in jedem Falle einen Versuch wert wäre. Wenn alle lokalen Entscheidungen derart nur vorläufig wären, wird es noch schwerer als heute, zu einem fairen Urteil zu gelangen.--Meloe (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

One idea is a link in the left column to report misconduct / harassment. This may cause a flood of complaints. However, if enough information were captured in the complaint, a dashboard could be created to act on the data in aggregate. (Ex: Paypal's handling of fraud) Such a complaint form might ask if the issue is related to an editor, admin, offensive content in an article, loaded language, false balance, etc. An admin could then filter complaints for high-value corrective actions. The end-user submitting the complaint could be informed that they may not get a personal response, but the data has been collected and is visible to admins. Zukisama (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to ensure safe and proper handling of incidents involving i) vulnerable people; ii) serious harassment; or iii) threats of violence?

Imho, I see only one thing: Whatever is done, involve/include/employ a bunch of well educated psychologists. Even better, if avialable in every language. But it's a wish and I doubt, this is feasible. Even if there are no "serious cases" there is probably a ton of workload, even if it's only the separation of "real cases" from "too much sensitivity". Defining the border of "too much" already seems like a pretty big task. (PS: As a sidenote, not in this context, if this is of interest to someone: I would see the same for (IP-)lawyers and professional mediators.) Regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Two thirds of this question are unanswerable because it doesn't define what "vulnerable people" and "serious harassment" are. As for threats of violence, I'm fairly sure those are illegal in most jurisdictions, and should be reported to the police. Silver hr (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In your experience, what are effective ways to respond to those who engage in behaviours that may be considered harassment?

From my experience it's really difficult if possible at all, but stay civil and be persevere in explaining different points of view. I did not experience success. So one might just need to leave the project. Compare w:de:wikipedia:Recht zu gehen (a page being controversial on it's own). This or similar things seem to be existent in some way or form everywhere, compare e. g. w:Wikipedia:Expert_retention#Ban_tendentious_editors. I do not want to criticize the quote itself (though "pretentious mediocrities" is pretty borderline imho), but the impolite interpretation of it. --HirnSpuk (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, one must be extremely clear about what "harassment" is and be wary of semantic drift. Human communication and interaction occupy a spectrum, and not all parts of that spectrum need to be legislated, especially considering the vast differences in culture and experience that people from across the world have. Specifically, impoliteness cannot be considered harassment, because what is impolite is highly subjective. Furthermore, being insulted or having one's feelings hurt cannot be considered harassment, again because those are highly subjective, and because mature people should reasonably be expected to manage their emotions. With all this in mind, a reasonable way to respond to harassers would be to explain clearly why their behavior constitutes harassment, without using emotional or ambiguous language, labels or metaphors. Effectiveness is unfortunately not guaranteed because in my experience harassers are mostly unreasonable. Thus, existing processes from mature wikis should be adopted (warnings, temporary bans, topic bans, permanent bans, etc.). Silver hr (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In what ways should reporting pathways provide for mediation, reform, or guidance about acceptable behaviours?

One idea is to implement tools to detect harassment or divisive content before it has been submitted. During the editing process, a tool such as PerspectiveAI could be used to give feedback on the author’s language. This might provide an early indication to the contributor that their approach may be inflammatory, prompting them to change their ways before actually publishing. --Zukisama (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Managing Reports

Making reporting easier will likely increase the number of reports: in what ways can the management of reports be improved?

Take money in your Hand and hire professionals.

Rather than considering the reporting structure as a ticketing system where each inquiry must be individually addressed, it could instead be used by an admin to detect high-value areas of correction / improvement. Assuming the 80 / 20 principle is at work, it is possible that a majority of issues will arise from a minority of articles / editors / members. For example, a dashboard could allow filtering by editor / ip / article / admin / article traffic / etc. This might allow an admin to quickly act to triage a high-value situation while allowing lower-volume issues to aggregate data / reports until they eventually build up enough data to also be acted upon. --Zukisama (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What type of additional resources would be helpful in identifying and addressing harassment and other conduct issues?

Language-specific well trained Psychologists! Probably not feasible. --HirnSpuk (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there human, technical, training, or knowledge-based resources the Foundation could provide to assist volunteers in this area?

There are a number of nonprofits that support diversity and inclusion programs within corporations. Given Wikipedia’s influence as an information authority, some of these groups may be willing to donate training material to help educate editors at no cost. I have connections in this area and would be happy to help explore with the WMF if it is of interest. (Reach out via my profile). --Zukisama (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

At the end of last week's roundtable, we talked about how improved education/training for editors and admins could be an effective method of enforcing the UCOC, or even prevent the need for enforcement in some cases. Several more ideas came to mind after the discussion that I thought might be helpful:

• As touched on in the discussion, "enforcement" implies correction of fault. Education, on the other hand, instills values that might prevent missteps in the first place.
• SuSa training was great, but it was targeted at leadership. An educational effort for the larger WP editor / admin community could inspire editors to uphold the UCOC, and provide the means to educate their their fellow editors to do the same.
• Such an effort might be more of a "campaign" than (or in addition to) a formal course or training. Ex: Creating sharable, bite-sized pieces of content that can be quickly shared in a heated conversation. Training content could be referenced at the top of the talk pages of contentious subjects. Memorable phrases regarding diversity, inclusivity, tolerance and respect could be created that could (hopefully) be repeated/referenced in conversations. Visuals illustrating UCOC points might get through to an enraged editor whose patience is thin due to a heated argument. Again, a campaign – small messages percolating throughout the community.
• This organic, loose "enforcement" might reduce the load on the hierarchical ArbComs, or provide a clearer picture of who is violating the UCOC in spite of X number of warnings and light admonishments from other editors / admins
• There are a finite number of subjects which are prone to (on or off-wiki) harassment – race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Each is unique, has its own pitfalls and unique histories. Thanks to the broader diversity and inclusivity trends, there are now unique resources and consultants – specialists in navigating the pitfalls in each of these subjects. What if training material were created for each in collaboration with D&I subject matter experts? Such training might suggest what to do in tricky situations. For example: "How should I handle criticism of my own race/religion/ethnicity?" This training might be used as a mild enforcement mechanism, for example, complete this training to remove your ban.
• Training / best practices to how to handle critical or derogatory information about these harassment-prone subjects. For example, when it is ok for criticism to appear regarding an ethnicity, a race, a gender identity, a religion? The dialectic process of arriving a NPOV permits such criticisms, and because of negativity bias, a small amount can have large effects. Should the WMF treat these harassment-prone subjects differently? (As a thought experiment, I have asked myself: What would the article on Judaism looked like on the German Wikipedia project in 1938? Or homosexuality in 1960? And what subjects are being unfairly criticized today?) Training on the divisiveness of contentious subjects might help.

Wikipedia is a primary source of information for millions of people and I truly think UCOC might have some role in reducing marginalization and divisiveness in society at large by being mindful about systemic and unconscious bias. If editors are inspired through training/education/campaigns to adopt diversity and inclusivity as a core value, it might have far-reaching effects. Hope this helps! Zukisama (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling Reports

In what ways should reports be handled to increase confidence from affected users that issues will be addressed responsibly and appropriately?

Often times, when one is editing around the same group of articles or set of subjects, the same set of editors respond to reports of issues either with article content or unfair treatment to editors because they are editing counter to the usual ideological basis of the article. Attempts to push a more holistic viewpoint and not just one perspective, is often buried under the dominant editors’ interpretation of policies and references. Every issue for every article should be addressed by a different set of admins and editors, to avoid “veto” and domination attempts by a group of editors.22:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

When private reporting options are used, how should the duty to protect the privacy and sense of safety of reporters be balanced with the need for transparency and accountability?

Multiple times, I have woken up to discover that someone has been globally banned for an unspecified offence. There is no way to even find out what the offence was, let alone assess whether the punishment was appropriate. This complete lack of transparency is typical of my interactions with the WMF, and it has not left a good taste in my mouth, even when I agree that a global ban was needed. I imagine that enforcement of the UCoC will increase the number of these unannounced global bans, so literally any accountability whatsoever would be a improvement on the current situation. Metaknowledge (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Metaknowledge. I was curious if you were aware of the recently-created process for those directly involved in a case to request a review by a volunteer Trust and Safety/Case Review Committee, and whether that is a good way to provide accountability? Are there additional steps that could be taken to improve confidence? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

you could have a disputes case page similar to DMCA takedowns, where you log facts about the case that can be disclosed to public. then metrics could be shown in aggregate for cases and actions. Slowking4 (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF): That's good to hear, but it does not directly address the problems I raised. The question is whether you want local admins to see WMF as a slightly antagonistic overlord, or as a partner. (Currently, it tends more toward the former.) Metaknowledge (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF):In my view, no editor should ever be subject to any sanctions unless there is a clear audit trail leading back to the actions for which the sanctions were imposed. Moreover, an appeal to the WMF should be possible should no such audit trail exist or if the project concerned have violated their own process for handling disputes. Martinvl (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Global Questions

How should issues be handled where there is no adequate local body to respond, for example, allegations against administrators or functionary groups?

There should be a central committee in each language that can handle such cases for all Wikisites. I'm currently experiencing an issue with an administrator and I have no idea what to do. Languageseeker (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Languageseeker: Thank you for your comment; I understand how frustrating it can be not knowing the appropriate next step. Although this isn't the place to address specific issues, the policy page for administrators for each project often has useful guidance on how to resolve disputes involving administrators. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I second that. And, imho, I don't think Languageseeker was thinking about addressing a specific issue. A central committee in each language would be helpful. Though I doubt it is feasible. I too have experiences needing this. Not all projects especially the smaller ones have guidance on how to resolve disputes involving adminstrators. Take for example the link to german wikibooks on d:Q4039395: there is no mention on how to resolve issues. There is just a hint, that adminstrators are also subject to consequences if they're missusing their rights. But if I understand correctly we are not talking about missusing rights but violating the CoC. And the question above is: "...where there is no adequate local body to respond...". At the moment it seems some discussions can get quite harsh pretty quickly ("Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship"?). It is my understanding, that this is exactly the talking point here? I experienced more than once, that a new editor didn't undertand the project scope imidiately and instead of polite help she got a harsh deletion warning. Even if we assume, that every project is obliged to install an "adequate local body" (which I assume will be the case) it will take some time, until every project has. --HirnSpuk (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In the past, the global movement has identified projects that are struggling with neutrality and conduct issues: in what ways could a safe and fair review be conducted in these situations?

One solution in respect of small Wikimedia projects, especially those that have very few administrators, would be to have "guest administrators". Typically, if the Scottish Wikipedia had insufficient administrators to run effectively, administrators who are fluent English, but who have sufficient understanding of Scots to operate as an administrator (using English), but insufficient understanding to act as an editor, then such people could become "guest administrators". It is of course assumed that anybody who can write in Scots can also read English. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Two comments here:

1. sysops who are fluent in a language might not be fluent enough to be really effective especially, when they are not fluent enough to act as an editor (I have personal experience in mind regarding this comment).
2. different projects might have different guidelines, a guest sysop might be tempted to use the processes she is used to, than to check for project-specific stuff . That is even worse with regards to "transproject"-Activities (e. g. wikipedia-wikibooks)

Hence I oppose "guest-admins/sysops". But I do see the problem and would propose asking the community actively for temporary sysops (say maybe 3 months?) for special tasks and/or building a team out of a guest sysop (that should have the specific language as a mother-toungue) and a local community member. --HirnSpuk (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@HirnSpuk: What I had in mind in my example was that the guest administrator would use English and not Scots. My assumption is that anybody who can edit in Scots is also fluent in English. Martinvl (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Martinvl: I do understand and it might be pretty helpful if community-members are active in both projects and sustain a good portion of civility. But if one doesn't speak the language of the project fluently there might be slight misunderstandings that might escalate quickly (assuming guidelines and policies of the project are also in the respective language). I mean this even happens between members of the same mother-toungue. I see the idea of "guest-sysops" and I even favour it to some degree, because it would probably help smaller projects a lot and maybe motivate sysops, if their help is really necessary and properly appreciated. But I see a lot of potential for trouble (because the "system" would probably not be limitable to opt-in decisions of communities and spread a lot over a lot of different projects and languages) hence my idea of either giving a local community-editor sysop-rights for a short period of time or forming teams. I'm assuming that would mitigate risks. --HirnSpuk (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Another idea: check the available sysops for activity and ask for help and immidiate response (hence getting only feedback from persons who are interested and willing) - block the whole site only for sysop-editing (minimizing risk of vandalism to an absolute minimum) except for one page - on this ask the local community for interested volunteers to discuss - ask sysops of same-language-projects (if available) to take a moderating role for this undertaking (if not available incubator maybe could be the way to go?) - set a deadline for a proposal to solve the problem (3 months?). After that there's Proposals for closing projects? --HirnSpuk (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A first step would be to not project American values, norms and expectations. Be truly inclusive. Learn to understand the local culture, consult experts and above all: American value's aren't universal. Conduct and neutrality issue's can only be truly addressed if you are capable of fully understanding the situation. When you do, that's the time to decide your course of action. Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

When lack of article neutrality leads to divisiveness and harassment, I think it should be more than a “content dispute.” Identity groups (ex: LGBTQ+, race, religion, etc) can be subjected to polarized opinions and unconscious bias. Strong negative emotions often carry more weight, and even subtle negativity can set the stage for hate speech, harassment outside the context of Wikipedia. To reduce the effect of possible negative bias on an identity group, I think a page should more clearly show that some of the content is in dispute. Ideally there would be a way for the reader to jump directly to the appropriate “talk” section for a disputed section so they can see both sides. A safe and fair review of the identity topic seems like it may require some level of arbitration. The arbiter would ideally have an understanding of basic Diversity and Inclusivity protocol, including how the use of subtle language can create unconscious bias. --Zukisama (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Another idea fo the drafting committee / discussion: Because of the unconscious aspect of this "identity bias" (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc), there has been a growing trend in corporations to provide "inclusivity" training. There are also a growing number of consultants who provide services around this. Could a thoughtfully designed training / campaign on inclusivity + unconscious bias be an effective enforcement mechanism? Would editors / admins who have completed such a training be given more weight / credence in sensitive NPOV disputes? And, for articles which could have second-order effects on the lives of millions of people could this training be required / strongly encouraged? Zukisama (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A safe review can be conducted by making sure no personally identifiable information leaks in the review such that someone is able to use it to endanger (and by that I mean physically endanger, not some arbitrary definition of danger) someone. A fair review can be conducted by establishing clear rules beforehand in unambiguous, non-metaphorical language, and applying those rules to all participants in the process. Silver hr (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How would a global dispute resolution body work with your community?

Speaking with NL-wiki in mind. Probably just as well as super-protect worked on de-wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Schaut euch die de-wiki Community an...: Das Verhältnis zwischen der Community und der WMF ist schon arg strapaziert. Natuur12 erwähnte Superprotect. Es gab auch anderes (Janneman-Sache sowie anderes aus anderen Wikipedien, wie :en:WP:FRAM). Und da derartige Aktionen oft ungenügend kommuniziert werden beziehungsweise da community-eigene Prozesse nicht respektiert werden, werden solche WMF-Aktionen als "feindliche" Einmischungen empfunden. Und jetzt wird noch dieseer UCoC einem aufgezwungen ohne uns gefragt zu haben, ob wir das überhaupt wollen (man konnte nur seinen Support, nicht aber Ablehnung ausdrücken). Man muss bedenken: Früher war die WMF einfach nur der "Serverbetreiber", nicht mehr und nicht weniger. Und nur dann, wenn die WMF juristisch gesehen zum Einschreiten gezwungen war, wurde das akzeptiert (klar, man hatte die Verfügung, jeder konnte das verifizieren). Und genau darin sieht eine Mehrheit (vermute ich mal) der Community die Rolle der WMF.

Wie auch immer, eine "global dispute resolution body" wird auf Widerstand stossen. Eine Interaktion, so wie es die WMF sich vorstellt, wird es also nicht geben. --Filzstift (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Die einzige Chance auf Akzeptanz hätte ein solches Gremium nur durch ausschließlich Community-gewählte Mitglieder. Für eventuell fehlende (juristische) Kompetenzen sollte die Möglichkeit bestehen, dass dieses Gremium im Einzelfall Experten hinzurufen kann. Und sollte vor allem in Projekten eingreifen, wo es keine evolvierten Mechanismen gibt. Und bei den Projekten mit evolvierten Mechanismen sollte das Gremium nur für juristisch notwendiges Eingreifen zuständig sein. --Ghilt (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zugegebenermaßen find ich durchaus auch Positives an der Idee eines Global arbitration committee und sehe Szenarien, wo so ein "body" sinnvoll gewesen wäre. Aber: Akzeptanz wird das nur dann finden, wenn sich dieser "body" von unten, sprich von den Communities aus, bilden darf, wenn die Wahl der Mitglieder aus der Mitte der Gemeinschaft heraus geschieht, wenn man in dem "body" weisungsfrei agieren kann, wenn der "body" die nötige Unterstützung und das Vertrauen der WMF hat, aber eben auch nicht mehr. Der "body" hat in dem Moment schon verloren, in dem die WMF ihre Kandidaten einbringt, Vorgaben zur Arbeitsweise definiert, sich Kontrolle über Interna und Entscheidungsfindung geben lässt, oder allgemein, wenn Hauptamtliche über Ehrenamtliche entscheiden dürfen. Ich bin zudem skeptisch, ob es sinnvoll ist, einen "body" über lokale Schiedsgerichte noch drüberzulegen. → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 15:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Community, Identity, Stability. --Jack User (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Dieser UCoC findet ja auch nicht im luftleeren Raum statt - die Bildung von "Global Council" und "Movement Charter" ermöglichen auch, dieses Gremium aus den Communities heraus zu gestalten und aufzubauen. Lokale Schiedsgerichte können in größeren Wikipedias sicherlich ausgewogener sein, aber es sollte die Möglichkeit geben, Entscheidungen lokaler Schiedsgerichte in krassen Fehlentscheidungen überstimmen zu können. Wenn z.B. die kroatische Wikipedia mit ihrem rechtsextremen Einschlag ein lokales Schiedsgericht hat, das ähnlich agiert, dann wär ein globales/regionales Gremium nicht schlecht ;-) Braveheart (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional discussion

@Tchoř, F.ponizil, Khamul1, Mario7, Ameisenigel, Sophie Elisabeth, Ghilt, Arabsalam, Helfmann, Stephan Hense, Regiomontanus, Lantus, Ledublinois, Fanchb29, Braaark, Sir Henry, Triboulet sur une montagne, GrandEscogriffe, Wulfstan, Openbk, Ptjackyll, Hektor Absurdus, Gytha, Ented, Szoltys, Adamt, GiantBroccoli, Kisnaak, Mcoffsky, YarikUkraine, and Dgho: Sorry for writing in English. Thank you for signing Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees. Please note the drafting committee has been selected.

Additional responses provided to the questions above in the context of your local communities will be helpful to the drafting committee's work. Please encourage interested parties to provide input as soon as possible, and preferably by 14 May 2021. Thank you, Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Luke081515 Sorry for writing in English. I missed your name in the above notification. Thank you for signing Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees. I noticed Af420 signed as well. Please note the drafting committee has been selected. Additional responses provided to the questions above in the context of your local communities will be helpful to the drafting committee's work. Please encourage interested parties to provide input as soon as possible, and preferably by 14 May 2021. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Experimental translingual talk page

Please let me know if this talk page would seem accessible to a non-English speaker with the interface language set to an available translation other than English. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF), if I understand it correctly you are asking for feedback? It seems good to me. And the amount of german input does also show it, I think. Out of curiosity I changed my interface to spanish, and it looks just fine too (though I don't speak spanish). Just a minor issue: I'd like a possibility to know, who is responsible for translating the comments. Best regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

HirnSpuk: Thank you for the feedback! If you were curious about the German comments, we do not currently have a community member that volunteered for this task, so I will be seeking translation support from colleagues. Unless you are volunteering =) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF): That depends: When do you need it finished? And would you want the text word by word, or would you take a summary (at least to match a deadline)? As long as there's not a tsunami of german comments arriving I'd be willing to depending on the time-frame. --HirnSpuk (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

HirnSpuk: It does not have to be an exact English version of the comment to the word, just listing the community positions in point/summary form - the core ideas of the comments.

Just an example re: Special:Diff/21404654, correct me if I misread: A user sought clarification about to whom the UCOC reports would go (i.e. a newly created body, the Foundation, higher appeals body, etc.?) and whether the reporting user could choose which body would hear the complaint. They felt that reports should go to native speakers, as there can be subtleties not detectable by non-native speakers which could lead to unfair results. They also pointed out that if every local decision could be appealed, stable fair verdicts will be difficult.

Let me know if you have any other questions and thanks in advance. As far as timing, I'm preparing reports for the drafting committee between now and midweek, though no pressure =) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF), the timeframe doesn't seem right. Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations says comments are possible until 5th of May. So preparing something now til midweek might miss something.

If you meant Special:Diff/21404654... Oh... you did... Edit-Collision... Well, I think you got the point.

#Nur fürs Protokoll – Just for protocol, the user thinks WMF dismisses external opinions if they contradict the opinion of WMF. Examples: Fram, Superprotect, Renaming. There is a wish for seeking support by the WMF not only consultation.

#How would a global dispute resolution body work with your community? – Users discuss the somehow broken relation between WMF and some communities and are in fear of repeating problems (super-protect, Janneman, Fram). These incidents are named hostile interference. The users present also the following points:

• the UCoC feels forced upon the communities
• the possibility of rejection is missed
• the WMF should take care for the servers and act only in case of law-problems
• Global arbitration committee might be a good idea, but should evolve bottom-up from the communities, without any influence of the WMF (and thus trusted by the WMF and the communities)
• some other/higher committee than the arbcoms might be a problem

If you need more help, let me know. Regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for summarizing these comments! We are doing reporting in parallel (starting on what is here, and adding what may come), since the discussions might still attract comments even after the official end. After all, this centralized discussion was only recently advertised at w:de:Vorlage:Beteiligen some days ago, so we still standing by to collect additional input. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The statement "the WMF should take care for the servers and act only in case of law-problems" is certainly something that needs looking at. I have been blocked from the English Wikipedia for seven years. After trying various means of being re-admitted, I checked where Wikipedia stood vis-a-vis the Law of the State of California. My understanding is that the crucial question is "Does Wikipedia offer a public service?". If the answer is "yes", then the way in which I was blocked was unlawful. When I put this to the Wikimedia Legal Team they told me that they could not answer me as this would create a conflict of interest (since they represent the WMF they cannot give me advice). This poses a problem as to how any new committee could handle law-problems where the administrators of a project are acting unlawfully.Martinvl (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Community summaries

Russian Wikipedia

This is a short briefing, for a complete understanding of the ideas it is better to look at the detailed answers in our survey.

1. 1. • Polls. Sometimes announce a 5-20 question survey. (the foundation has already done this several times Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Reader Behaviour/Demographics and Wikipedia use cases)
      • Button. At the beginning, the user can try to get help via a link / button, and a counter can be made from the event of clicks. It can be difficult to fill out and send a message, so the fact of the first click is important. (you can further compare how many people entered the entry point (button) and how many left / active after a few days)
   2. • Mini-administrator with peace enforcement tools. It all comes down to requests to participants with administrator rights. If someone wants to communicate neutrally and smooth out social conflicts, he can have his own new group of rights without influencing the versions of the articles.
   3. • Wikiprojects, mediators for a small thematic area wikipedia:ru:Wikipedia:Посредничество, Arbitration Committee, discord and telegram channels
      • All networks are unstable (there are peaks of activity, and periods of abandonment, uninteresting volunteers skip by)
   4. • Large pages for reviewing places on a wiki, suggesting steps before requesting, personal message (sometimes it is emotionally easier / safer to write to one person in person than in public places)
      • Contacting Wikipedia and the administrators is scary for new contributors. The participant can act closely - in his own talk page, place the template "I need help" (wikipedia:ru:Template:Help). It would be helpful for experienced participants willing to respond to be notified quickly immediately after using the template, rather than checking the category occasionally.
2. 1. • Interactive guide. You choose the reasons, you get the solution (there is a New Articles Wizard and an Image Upload Wizard)
      • ORES. It will help just knowing that the edit can be recognized by machine learning as bad, they will try to avoid this (participants can try to train the AI to determine the toxicity of the message)
   2. • Gradual freezing of the environment. Partial blocking, ban on topic articles, temporary blocking (many participants consider blocking to be something bad, so much so that they even ask to hide it from the logs. Perhaps a mechanism for freezing rights without the old meaning of blocking is needed)
      • ruwikinews faced the threat of violence (iii), they probably have some experience with this
   3. • Soft and hard pressure, clearly marked boundaries of the permissible.
      • Gradual progressive increase in subsequent punishments. Errors made for the first time can be lightly punished, but it is necessary to bring and acquaint with the norms and probable real punishments. (not very serious in the beginning. Any first block is emotionally serious)
      • Automatic ways of applying restrictions from one account to new accounts created by a participant
   4. • Communication under the supervision of a third party. The text is interpreted by everyone in different ways and in their own favor. Abstract game situations that can be associated with your case.
3. 1. • There should be a simple way to assess toxicity / malice in an action / statement, without referring to the chronology of events and rules, without imagining a psychological portrait of the individual. If the participant is persistently toxic, he should be limited in metapedism
   2. • Contribution intersection tool https://interaction-timeline.toolforge.org/ . This tool needs a configurable maximum period between one and a second participant in the same page / discussion
      • Warnings if new actions of a participant in a topic area / article where a restriction was issued to him (setting filters for a participant)
      • Automatic notifications to administrators about the activation of the situation control filters. If the edits appeared in a prohibited article or a short time after the victim
   3. • Buy scientific research. (there are specialists with an education in the field of Conflictology, pay them for a scientific article about the processes in the wiki society from their point of view)
      • Public support for opinions. for example a button template showing the number of consonants with a message from one person
      • More supporting initiatives, tools, approaches from system (extensions to use or add to the wiki)
   4. • Assessed by the severity of the impact if the harm came back and happened inside the wiki
      • The participant provides links to several cases of investigations
        • Probably, you can specifically write that coordinating attacks on wikis in closed chats is highly undesirable (complicated by the fact that a volunteer whistleblowers compromises personal data of his own and others)
        • Systems are acceptable, the log of which can be obtained, but warn that their moderation does not depend on us
        • It is a unjustified to punish locally for what was done in another project
4. 1. • The user could see the progress of the request through stages, comments (confidentially) and the result at each stage, and not just send a request, wait, and receive a prepared response
   2. • Rechecks should have access to all the data of the previous process of finding solutions. In the new process, there must be a preliminary decision, which is executed after a short time, if there were no objections (so as not to provoke another appeal cycle)
      • It should look like a common, complex procedure being carried out. If considered narrowly within the framework of one rule, then participants will use this and repeat it with other rules or deliberately avoid mentioning other rules.
   3. • Protect as necessary, but if there is something that you consider abuse of the request system, of course you should notify the local functionaries (checkers, etc.)
   4. • Access to read them should be controlled and retain a reference to the initiating request / access motivation. If there were cross-wiki violations, will the data be accessed by local checkers or the global authority will look at the data on demand.
5. 1. • Provide a way / form in which participants can express their opinion, by which the global body will see support for the opinion, and itself will remove the participant from problematic instruments. (in practice, it is more difficult for the participants of one wiki to take away a group of rights than to give it)
      • If ordinary participants receive pressure, you should not be afraid to leave the wiki without groups of rights, the wiki will survive with external control (stopping / freezing access to tools is not such a big problem, we can always go through the distribution of rights again)
   2. • Process automation. Opinions are usually collected slowly. (any means of simplifying the collection and posting of comments are already useful)
      • Separate chat system. There is an elected group of participants that considers a complex request and prepares one solution. They can be given an extension to work on one page with the text of the resolution, in which they can open and close discussion threads in a simple chat and link the thread to a place in the text. (like google docs, but with a visible action log for the wiki)
   3. • First, ask the communities to check the rules for compatibility because there may be differences
      • Community requests the examination of the draft of the new / old rules for compliance with the Code and the global authority may evaluate ok or not
      • Inviting a member from another community to look at a problem can provide a fresh perspective and illuminate an unknown solution

Questions

• It is difficult to translate the code word for word. Some words from English in another language are neologisms. Existing words are not suitable, for example, for the word harassment, it requires the disclosure of the meaning to the reader. In translations, we need a place for maneuvers, synchronization of the meaning of a word with everyone, so that we all understand one thing, not different. For example, at the beginning of the contract terms are established (e.g. "referred to" in the [1]), or in scientific articles there is a section on abbreviations and definitions.

General comments

• Some soulless tools, such as protection, stabilize in the Extension:FlaggedRevs and rollbacks, make it difficult for volunteers to contribute, so maybe a global body could look at cases of use or violence with tools.

General comments

Nur fürs Protokoll

Ich bin überzeugt die Meinungen sind irrelevant, da WMF die Meinung der Community nur interessiert wenn es die richtige Meinung ist. Selbst eine laute und starke Meinung wie hier mit fast 1000 einzelnen Unterzeichnern und über 70 "affiliates" brachte erst nach Monaten eine Reaktion von WMF die da hieß; "na gut wir denken nochmal nach".
Diese Konsultationen brauchen eine breite, weltweite Beteiligung - das reicht nicht. Es braucht nicht nur eine Beteiligung sondern eine Zustimmung und zwar erstmal zum CoC und nicht schon direkt zu seiner Umsetzung. Das dieser Punkt übersprungen wurde zeigt wohl die Angst von WMF vor einer Klatsche. Wenn WMF glauben würde, dass es eine breite Zustimmung für den CoC gäbe, dann würde sie den Wiki-üblichen Schritt eines MBs nicht scheuen. In herrschaftlicher Manier a la Superprotect und Framban arbeitet WMF auch hier weiter. ...Sicherlich ^Post 08:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Google translate:
I am convinced the opinions are irrelevant, because WMF is only interested in the opinion of the community if it is the right opinion. Even a loud and strong opinion like here with almost 1000 individual signatories and over 70 "affiliates" only brought a reaction from WMF after months; "well we'll think again". These consultations need broad, global participation - that is not enough. It not only requires participation but also approval, first of all for the CoC and not directly for its implementation. That this point was skipped probably shows WMF's fear of clapping. If WMF believed that there was broad approval for the CoC, then it would not shy away from the usual wiki step of an MB (Note: an MB is the German equivalent of an RFC). WMF continues to work here in grand style a la Superprotect and Framban. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alsee (talk) 

Strong  Support --Morten Haan (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support Needs a voting yes or no --Ghormon (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support --Olei (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support ich bin vollkommen einverstanden! Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support --TiLaton (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The UCoC is a universal bullshit bingo. --Jack User (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support -- Millbart (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "The goal of these consultations is to help outline clear enforcement pathways for a drafting committee to design proposals for a comprehensive community review later this year." The communities were never consulted about whether they want a (or any for that matter) UCoC or not. This "consultation process" is therefore nothing more than window dressing and can't be taken seriously. Unfortunately it's what we have come to expect from the WMF.

Strong  Support The UCoC is anglocentric, doesn't respect country-specific traditions and circumstances and forces a radical left identity politics agenda onto everyone which was crafted by student radicals from US university campuses. We need a fair voting about this, I doubt most editors would approve such an UCoC. --TheRandomIP (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support --He3nry (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support --Fano (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support A further step in WMFs strategy reducing the active userbase and encyclopedical quality. --84.150.122.74 15:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong  Support. The Code of Conduct has no consensus, the entire Movement Strategy explicitly rejected any consensus process, rebranding the Foundation as "Wikipedia" was 92% opposed, as far as I'm aware there is unanimous opposition to the strategy item to undermine our Notability and Reliable Source policies. I think we're going to need a global consensus declaring the entire Movement Strategy illegitimate and void.
Translate/Übersetzen: Der Verhaltenskodex hat keinen Konsens, die gesamte Bewegungsstrategie lehnte ausdrücklich jeden Konsensprozess ab, die Umbenennung der Stiftung in "Wikipedia" war zu 92 % dagegen, soweit ich weiß, gibt es einstimmigen Widerstand gegen den Strategiepunkt, um unsere Notability zu untergraben und Richtlinien für zuverlässige Quellen. Ich denke, wir werden einen globalen Konsens brauchen, der die gesamte Bewegungsstrategie für illegitim und nichtig erklärt. Alsee (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

What are "unfair embarrassments" ?

Section 3.1 – Part Threats: "...unfair embarrassment, unfair and unjustified reputational harm..."

What would be considered a "fair embarrassment"? And isn't reputational harm always unfair if it's unjustified? And is on the other hand reputational harm acceptable if and only if it is justified? Though the judgement should be left to a court?

I would suggest removing "unfair" and "unjustified". Regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, HirnSpuk. I am organizing all these questions & thoughts about the Policy text for a post to the policy text talk page for consideration in the revision process. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversy? Maybe support/accept harsh behaviour?

I want to point out another problem: I would assume, not having first hand experience, sockpuppets (or any other behaviour, not directly disrupting projects, but not being helpful either) and the respective handling is quite tiresome. Hence experienced users dealing with this might tend to be less polite, than sensitive people might require (but hence helping the big majority). So there might be a lot of assumed CoC-Violations, that actually might not be? Or would it be appropriate to ask those people who are working hard to keep "sock puppets under control" to be more polite? I for myself think it would be, but as I said I don't have first hand experience and I want to raise the question on behalf of the ladies and gentlemen dealing with a fair amount of a borderline-"leave me alone you stu*** sysop". --HirnSpuk (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

HirnSpuk That's an interesting point. I actually wrote something in my volunteer capacity during a wikilearn course (so posting in that capacity):

“ The new ones

One of the things I realized early on when coming to Wikipedia was how important it is for us to continually grow our editor base. If we want to achieve the goal of providing the sum of all human knowledge, we need to be welcoming to all who can help with this challenging task.

Our old adage (en: "Please do not bite the newcomers") is important advice for us to follow. What I’ve noticed is that being brusque with newcomers will cause them to leave, counter to our goal. It makes me sad when I see that happening, as providing a welcoming and inclusive environment is necessary to our goals.

Meanwhile, I imagine it can be somewhat frustrating to continually have to give the same advice to newcomer after newcomer, and reminding a new editor to cite reliable sources for the 1000th time can be irritating. Another editor's comment helped me to achieve perspective: even though it might be my thousandth time giving the same advice, that contributor is hearing this advice (or possibly even hearing from another editor) for the very first time. What feeling do I want them to experience when hearing from me? The feeling of being dismissed, excluded, or treated unfairly? Or the feeling of collaborative spirit that embodies our project? Our project ideals hold that we must not be abrasive with new editors, even (or especially) when we’re tired of saying the same things over-and-over.

I imagine it may seem like there is a never-ending deluge of edits requiring improvement from newcomers. This is, of course, true. It is also what makes Wikipedia great. We should always be trying to constructively improve on each other’s work with every edit or comment. Appreciate that there is no deadline, and if you’re feeling tired or frustrated dealing with the same issues over-and-over, to take some time off from that work task! Try focusing on another area of the project and come back later, with a refreshed enthusiasm. Someone else can handle it: it's a collaborative project, after all.

”

Tl;dr: In my opinion, as long as a fellow contributor is open to receiving feedback, a quiet word when you notice them getting irritated by constantly addressing the same issues can be helpful. –xeno 16:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems we generally see it the same. But the problem you speak about is something else than I'm talking about. I don't talk about getting tired of doing the same stuff over and over again, but more like dealing with individuals violating the "CoC" that much, that one thinks badly about a minor mistake somebody made because of inexperience. And there are several layers of this, too: supposed "ownership", excessive surveillance, well-meant RTFMs... But all this is happening also "in good faith to support the projects". Compare my comment above: #In your experience, what are effective ways to respond to those who engage in behaviours that may be considered harassment?. Regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no Portuguese version?

Why is there no Portuguese version? How to create the Portuguese version? --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Entendi como funciona. Acabei de traduzir, mas ainda estou um pouco perdido com tantos links. (I understand how it works. I just translated it, but I'm still a little lost with so many links.)--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I need someone to proofread my edits, because the link to the Portuguese version is not showing up. Attention: the correct translation of "Universal Code of Conduct" into Portuguese is Código Universal de Conduta, not Código de Conduta Universal (what is universal is the code, as in the English version). In the foundation and some titles it is wrong, but I can't edit them. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Felipe da Fonseca: Thank you for doing those translations! We placed a note at w:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/anúncios#Universal_Code_of_Conduct_–_2021_consultations, as well as other pt projects, yet until now we did not have a local coordinator. Since your hard work, if someone has their interface set to "pt-br" they will see those translated questions on this page (e.g.) and can answer in their native language.

Xeno (WMF) If you wish, I can be the local coordinator, but I still need to get acquainted with the whole project. In this case it would be good to have your help for that, too.

Please note if someone has their interface language set to pt, it will still display in English, but they can use this link for the pt-br version. Is it possible to re-use pt-br translations to pt? (Pols12 is there an easy fix here for our translator?)

Yes, it is entirely possible. There are only a few differences, but they don't usually change the meaning of the text.

Please invite pt-br language users to this page to answer in any language, or start a discussion on local project(s) by copying the text. If possible, try to ask for rapid feedback - by 14 May, and return to me a summary of the conversation ASAP (by 18 May). The drafting committee will better benefit from earlier input.

A discussion has been opened here.

I read your mesh proposal with interest, since it is similar to what we did. We have a wikidata item to link each local discussion. I'm told Flow would have also enabled cross-project discussions in a more seamless way. I think in order for this type of thing to be successful, local projects would have to state : "these are the users that are available to help coordinate locally". Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in the Universal Code of Conduct because it is an example of mesh design. I only realized it later, but I already put it there in the proposal as an example. I don't think it is necessary to have this local representative, but I agree that it can facilitate and validate actions. I personally am available for it, if WMF wants to implement it. I would have to consult with the community, of course.

Ps: I've detected a few little problems, I'm going to go through a new edition.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Some problems: 1) I can't link [this page], it appears as nonexistent; 2) the title of the previous page (and others) is as Código de Conduta Universal , but the correct is Código Universal de Conduta; 3) there was a translation error in Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion(?) (in the Portuguese version) (I haven't checked everything, I'll check the rest later) "3 comitê de redação" not supposed to have this "3".--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Try linking like Foundation:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/pt. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

#section parser function is full of mysteries for me… 😛

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T282208 But if you try to translate to pt, right panel will display pt-br already-done translation as “In other language” section, to pick it easily. --Pols12 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Community support?

The foundation is asking the community to support the implementation of a UCoC, wouldn't it be helpful first to find out whether there is support for a UCoC in general? If there isn't support for one that is universal and binding throughout the projects, a lot of time, energy and resources will be wasted and even more goodwill from the community burned. Is that something the foundation is willing to risk? --Millbart (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Runder Tisch / Round-table discussions

Round-table announcement in other languages

Der Kurzbericht zu den Konsultationen 2021 ist jetzt hier verfügbar. Die eingereichten Beiträge waren sehr hilfreich, da sie mehrere wichtige Fragestellungen aufzeigten, die von den Communities geteilt wurden.

Das Projektteam sucht weiterhin nach Anregungen und Ideen aus den Communities im Rahmen des Runden Tisch und in anderen laufenden Gesprächen. Der nächste runde Tisch ist für 17. Juli 2021 um 15:00 UTC geplant.

Die Gespräche werden mindestens in Deutsch, Französisch, Spanisch und Englisch stattfinden.

Wir sind dankbar für all die wertvolle Zeit, die Benutzer zu diesen Diskussionen beigetragen haben. Gerne kannst Du deine Kommentare oder Fragen hier oder auf der Diskussionsseite des Berichts auf Meta hinterlassen. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@HirnSpuk, Zukisama, Pols12, Natuur12, Felipe da Fonseca, Martinvl, Filzstift, Millbart, Silver hr, Ghilt, Coffeebreak80s, Sunpriat, Jack User, Metaknowledge, Fano, He3nry, TheRandomIP, TiLaton, Olei, Touchaws, Ghormon, Braveheart, Man77, Meloe, Morten Haan, Slowking4, and Languageseeker: My colleague helped translate the above (English version follows), as I wanted to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to this page in multiple languages =) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The summary report for the 2021 consultations is available here. The input provided was quite valuable in highlighting several major themes of inquiry that were shared among communities.

The project team continues to seek thoughts and ideas from the communities in the context of open round-table discussions and other ongoing outreach. The next round-table is scheduled for 17 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC.

We're quite thankful for all the valuable time users have contributed to these discussions. Feel free to leave any comments or questions here, or the talk page of the report on Meta. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

With the support of other Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators, the upcoming round-table discussions will be held in at least four languages: English, French, German, Spanish. Other language support may be available as well. As always, we welcome comments in any language. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to the round-table discussions: "The discussions will be held on Zoom." Does no one involved in this process realise that you will need to engage on-wiki with the communities to get any kind of buy-in? Are you (everyone involved in this process) really that far removed from the projects and communities that the foundation once claimed to serve? You might just as well have your discussions on a mailing list or in a Facebook group.--46.142.12.31 13:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I agree about the importance of on-wiki consultation: upcoming is a comprehensive community review of the enforcement draft guidelines. The team is using multiple approaches. In both on-wiki and live round-table discussions, there is a dynamic exchange of ideas; we have found that these can enrich and extend each other through perspective sharing, and have been useful in generating input and ideas. If you have ideas for another format, please let me know. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussions have taken place on-wiki before getting to the stage of a draft guideline? Ideally, we'd be seeing the draft being developed on-wiki, so that it's possible to correct mistakes in real time. A take-it or leave-it approach doesn't seems like a good way to gain consensus. Instead, it seems like a good way to be told that the community would rather leave-it.

It often feels like the foundation is treating on-wiki consultations as a check-the-box thing, rather than a genuine consultation where on-wiki feedback is allowed to influence the end result. The draft guidelines should be a simple wiki page that can be improved using a simple Bold-Revert-Discuss process, the same way that other policy is developed. Without the legitimacy that comes from this process, the draft will be a non-starter.

Do you think that Foundation employees, contractors, and Foundation-selected committees should have some sort of monopoly on policy writing, especially when one of the Movement Strategy priorities is to ensure equitable representation in global decision making? TomDotGov (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That's great! Where can I find the on-wiki discussions where a reasonable number of members from the communities suggest the introduction of a Universal Code of Conduct in a way that would justify discussions about actual content and implementation? All I see is a waffling "Wikimedia Movement Strategy" that wants to "Provide for Safety and Inclusion" and was never put to the communities for a vote. Never mind that there is no such thing as "Movement" that communities actually approved of. --Millbart (talk)

There have been numerous on-wiki discussions getting to this stage. There have also been community-written drafts, which the team welcomes and reviews them in earnest. The report itself highlights other community discussions and positions as well, including the Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees. The previous phase saw substantial revisions based on community input. More details about the enforcement draft guidelines review will be coming soon. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I specifically asked for "on-wiki discussions where a reasonable number of members from the communities suggest the introduction of a Universal Code of Conduct" and not discussions where communities either outright rejected any kind of UCoC, where some of the largest communities were ignored or where individual users were engaging in damage limitation. Please, again, show us majority community support for a UCoC if there really is one. --Millbart (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest community insights report and Design research? Have you reviewed the results of the recent local language consultations which show a desire for more to be done to support the safety of contributors and welcome new voices into the community? Do you agree that an on-wiki survey of users will tend to have a sampling bias towards the opinions of those users who are already familiar and comfortable with the current systems, to the likely exclusion of those that do not feel safe or invited on the platform? Is it credible to say we are working towards a neutral point of view without doing everything we can do ensure everyone - including vulnerable or traditionally marginalized groups - can contribute in sharing the sum of all human knowledge? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that on-wiki discussion has an inherent sampling bias. Certainly, in recent experience, on-wiki discussion has proved far more accurate than bespoke methods that the Foundation has attempted to use in preference to on-wiki discussion. Look at, for example, the movement brand project, where the Foundation's bespoke methods were unable to detect the >90% opposition that had been there from the start. The move to bespoke and unproven methods of evaluating consensus is as likely to introduce sampling bias as to reduce it - it's not like the Foundation has a way of conducting scientific polling, and to pretend the reports staff produces are inherently accurate is to ignore recent experience.

The current system - where policy has been developed on-wiki, in the light of day - has produced one of the greatest free works of human knowledge that the world has ever seen. The most inclusive group is the one that includes everyone, and that's why that's the group that we charge to develop content, and until recently, policy. Developing policy in closed committees, in a way different from the content that form the core of the mission, can alienate people who do not share the biases of the people that select the committee, and hence hurts the mission of sharing knowledge. Who wants to join a community where you have to know someone in San Francisco for your opinions to count? TomDotGov (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, thank you! --Millbart (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)