Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voter information

This page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voter information.   Please remember to: Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~) Remain civil and polite during discussions. Place new comments below in existing sections or start a new section.   Discussion navigation: For general discussion about the UCoC project: Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Project For enquiries about the UCoC Coordinating Committee: Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee For discussions about UCoC training: Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Training For enquiries about the UCoC policy: foundationwiki:Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct For enquiries about the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines policy: foundation:Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines For a list of all historical discussions: Universal Code of Conduct/Discussions

Threshold

From my point of view the Enforcement Guidelines and the Universal Code of Conduct are relevant documents and such documents need after my understanding a higher acceptance than the more than 50 Percent. From my point of view there are a view possibilities and I currently see that there are maybe acceptance problems in parts of the German Wikipedia. It is my view and I am not sure if it is the case. In Germany changes in General Law, what is something like a constitution need a positive vote of 66,67 percent of the members of the parliament to be accepted.

I wish such a minimum acceptance level that the guideline is passed to the board also for this vote. Another alternative could be a voting system with a voting per Wiki or Area if there are only a few active user in a Wikimedia Project language version. In that case I think if there a positive vote of more than 70 percent of the attending Wikimedia Projects language versions that represent at least 70 percent of the active volunteers in the Wikimedia projects should be needed to go further. The possibility to see the acceptance per Project or group of projects is something that I currently prefer.

I think the reasons for a yes or no should be part of a separate survey. The vote should from my point of view only about the question do you support it or not.--Hogü-456 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Eligibility of Affiliate Board members

Thanks for the detailed instructions for the voting. One question: Are Affiliate Board members not eligible to vote, and if so, what is the reasoning behind that? --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nicole Ebber (WMDE): Hi Nicole, Affiliates Board members would qualify to vote if they fulfill the editor or developer eligibility requirement. We understand that this may leave out a few Affiliates Board members that was appointed for their professional expertise or being elected to represent the non-editing community sector of an Affiliate, but this is the best compromise that we could find considering the highly diverse composition and legal status of Affiliates boards across the movement. For consistency of electoral rules across the Wikimedia elections, we have also been asked to adapt the rules from Board of Trustees election, which you can find here. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Opposing the guidelines

The Voting process section says: If opposing the guidelines, write down recommended changes to Guidelines to include with your vote.

So, I have two options: I can support the proposal as is, or I can support an amended version. Let's say that I oppose it altogether. Will I have a spoiled my ballot if I vote oppose without providing a recommended change? Vexations (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Vexations: a comment is not required for the vote to be considered valid. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

8th FAQ

Should it be fixed? It looks strange. --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That section was introduced in this edit [1] by @User:Xeno (WMF) Perhaps they forgot to fill in the correct path for LINKxxxxxxxxxx? Vexations (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Victor Trevor/Vexations: Fixed, thank you for the note. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Xeno. I will glad, if you are look at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting/Translations. --Victor Trevor (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why I am not eligible to vote?

I get this error message:

• Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.
• We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list. Please visit the voter help page for more information on voter eligibility and information on how to be added to the voter list if you are eligible.

GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev You can see why you're not yet eligible to vote with the AccountEligibility tool: https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/GavriilaDmitriev You have not made at least 300 edits as of 06 February 2022. Vexations (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift and correct reply!

Still sucks to be excluded from a pseudo-vote. Voting yes but just for a minority. :(

Always glad to have rules which are aimed to exclude people.

GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Eligibility question

I've noticed that several employees of the WMF have voted on the poll, using employee accounts. Are these meant to be eligible? I'd expect that actions of employees are subject to rules of their employer. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The rules that apply to non-employees don't seem to apply to them. There is no requirement that they meet the minimum number of contributions, for example.

Employees who don't meet the normal criteria but voted anyway (as of 2022-03-14):

• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/DRochford_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/AKarani_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/DPifke_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/HTriedman_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/Slaporte_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/FRomeo_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/Keegan_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/AJones_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/KStineRowe_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/CLo_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/KEchavarriqueen_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/MVernon_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/KChapman_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/CRoslof_(WMF)
• https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/62/NPerry_(WMF)

Vexations (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• OK, never mind, somehow missed it on the page Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voter_information#Wikimedia_Foundation_staff_and_contractors. This does seem a bit odd to include staff in a poll that is primarily targeting volunteers. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux In the FAQ under #10, they seems to indicate inputs needed from staff. I am not sure how getting staff to vote in a binary yes / no fashion negates the effects of group think in an echo chamber though. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  I will add that perhaps open internal discussions may be better or to separate the staff votes out of volunteers might be a way too? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Camouflaged Mirage: That currently isn't possible with SecurePoll.
  @Xaosflux: Regarding: I'd expect that actions of employees are subject to rules of their employer.

  Not speaking officially here or anything (just my personal take), but I believe the UCoC applies to employees as well as volunteers. Per the enforcement guidelines, staff are required to affirm, acknowledge, and adhere to the UCoC. The only exception mentioned in the enforcement guidelines for staff is this line: The U4C will not take cases that involve employer-employee relations disputes... or any matter that does not relate to the violations of the Universal Code of Conduct, and its enforcement. Finally, paid staff are mentioned explicitly under "Guidance for processing" as users who may be sanctioned (with their status as a paid employee being a consideration that should made). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yea I get it, but staff that don't follow the rules of their company can already be "sanctioned" by getting fired! — xaosflux ^Talk 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Could you post a link to the list of voters? I saw it somewhere but can't find it anymore. kyykaarme (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you hold a conference call at some point to bolster votes?

Can you host a conference call to go over some background and why this is importaint in order to help bolster vote? CaribDigita (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

CaribDigita: There were a series of recent calls summarized here, as well as a panel discussion which was recorded. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What is being even voted on?

I reached the vote page via banner and I see "Do you support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the proposed guidelines?" without any description of what is being voted on or even a link.

I expect that vast majority of people will vote without any knowledge at all what is being voted on.

After reading https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voting I still have no idea what is the difference between yes vote and no vote

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mateusz Konieczny My understanding is that with a 'Yes' result, the work phase of the U4C Building Committee will begin, and that committee will eventually present to the community (for another vote) a proposed structure for a U4C (a global committee) to guide the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct. Both committees are described in the Enforcement guidelines. There is also a Summary.

With a 'No' result, there will be a further refining period using the input gathered before another community approval round. Some further details are here. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You named it wrong

"Universal Code of Conduct"? How pompous. It only applies within Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, right? Does someone think that is the universe? How arrogant. How ignorant. How embarrassing. -A876 (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you can read the meaning of "Universal". It is not only means "universe". Thanks. SCP-2000 08:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, it should be discussed in Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct instead of here. SCP-2000 10:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Domain"

(Question from it.wiki here)

Hi, how do you determinate from which community the person who is voting comes from? The question is about the "auto-select wiki" in the account eligibility, and the "Domain" in the list of voters. --Patafisik (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Patafisik: Thanks for the question and helping with engagement. The domain displayed in the list of SecurePoll votes is taken from where an account was first registered. Realizing this does not always correspond to where a user edits, we are also trying to further understand the breakdown of voters by looking at other metrics as well, such as most edited wiki.

However, for now, most of our analysis is using the homewiki that is set at time of registration, as that is most readily available. Let me know if you have more questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editors

Hi, I appreciate the need for voting to be restricted to those with an active engagement in Wikimedia projects, but I also believe that there should be an eligibility for IP-based editors who choose not to have an account. There are users who choose to edit from IP, some of whom maintain static IPs, and I think that even if the eligibility threshold is higher, or has exceptions for banned IP ranges, some sort of consideration should be given to them as well.

IP-based users are always told we should never be felt to be lesser than account-based contributors because we choose not to maintain an identity in the Wikimedia ecosystem, and in practice that is usually true, but it's moments like this when I question that messaging. 98.217.255.37 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Some sort of consideration could be given to your views on enforcement of the UCoC if you simply stated what those views are. Vexations (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Allowing IP voting may easily cause troll and it sound like not a good idea. But you can simply leave your comment on the talk page to express your opinion and help improvement. SCP-2000 00:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Translation in other languages

As an international work in many languages it should be possible to have translations in more languages than the english version. Kind regards --Mellebga (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Mellebga: we are striving to achieve as many translations as we can. Is there a particular page and language you are thinking about? For now I'm counting roughly 27 near-complete translations of the subject page as well as several more in-progress translations (we are thankful for the work of many staff, external, and volunteer translators alike). Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is discussion happening?

The vote description and voter info don't specify where to discuss these guidelines w/ others. There should be a link to the right place -- perhaps Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines? -- where vote organizers are responding to questions. Is that the right page? Can this be added to the FAQ and the landing page describing the vote? –SJ talk  04:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Seconding this. Generally, voting is not really how we establish new processes or make policy decisions on Wikimedia projects—instead, we usually seek to discuss proposals with each other and reach a consensus on the way forward. Even in the few instances where we do use an election format (e.g. to decide who should be stewards or arbitrators), there is typically a centralized discussion page where editors may give their views on why they are supporting or opposing the item on the ballot. Is there a centralized discussion page where editors have given their views on why they are supporting or opposing the proposal here? Mz7 (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sj and Mz7: Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines might be the page that you're looking for. Do note that there are several local discussions listed here. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of eligible voters

Does anyone know how many people are eligible to vote? Vexations (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vexations, 67,341 accounts on the voter list. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Voting bug - closed 24 hours early?

Resolved. Access the vote via: m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391

@Xeno (WMF): The vote seems to have closed 24 hours early? The info pages say that voting includes the 21st, and even votewiki itself specifies that the vote is supposed to run until 00:00, 22 March 2022, but the vote page says "This election has finished, you can no longer vote." Please fix this, I imagine a lot of people waited until the last day to vote (as usually happens), only to be cut off by this. --Yair rand (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yair rand: I am looking into this right away. It appears the jump polls did not get the update. In the meantime, please tell affected users that they will have to probably come to Meta-wiki to access the jump here m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391 (once it is fixed). Thank you for advising me! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for the report Yair rand. When the votewiki timing was updated, the local jump polls did not automatically reflect the change. Users on affected wikis should vote from m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391 (which is the 'vote here' link from the subject page). Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Eligability of organizers

It is a pity that there is still no recognition for a separate eligability for Organizers who do outreach and educational work. I guess the A+F essay in Wikipedia@20 did not find enough readers yet. --Zblace (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of one who would not be eligible. Have you got an example? Vexations (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not think singling out is smart. For sure I would not point to users whose productivity in wiki editing is limited by toxic situation on their home wiki projects and focus on organizing work. --Zblace (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can't identify them, then you can't give them a vote either. Vexations (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vexations I did not say that. Sure can and I work with some of them, but would not want to publicly single out anyone. I think organizers are super important even if though they are likely still a smaller group than developers. --Zblace (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to work on a list of potentially qualifying criteria, for further consideration? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

Am I understanding it correctly that only the Enforcement Guidelines are voted on by all members, the Code of Conduct itself had never been up to public vote? Or has there been a public vote for the Code of Conduct previously? Nordostsüdwest (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nordostsüdwest: Hello, UCoC policy was ratified by the Board of Trustees on 2 February 2021, and there had never been public vote. See also Universal Code of Conduct/Project. Thanks. SCP-2000 00:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Scrutineer note

I struck my own vote this time, as one of the scrutineers – while there is no policy against it, none of us voted.

Noting here because a couple people asked privately. –SJ talk  18:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

vote results?

When and where are the results posted? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Someone writed – Sometime in next week (2021-04-04 to 2021-04-11). Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

???

Why are you giving me a banner, if I cannot vote??? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A little fault in the U4C-statute ...

There is a missing verb in 4.3.1., third subitem, in the second sentence. Best regards, --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)