Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text

This page is for the discussion of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy text approved by the Board of Trustees on 2 February 2021. Phase 1 of the community consultations around the UCoC closed on 6 October 2020. Phase 2, which began in February 2021, involves community conversations and proposal drafting on how to implement and enforce the UCoC. The UCoC will be refined during Phase 2 and reviewed again after the conclusion of that phase. Please also watch the main page for opportunities to take part in discussions on implementation and application!

For those who have commented on the UCoC, please feel free to input at "Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Discuss/Provide for Safety and Inclusion". George Ho (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

On several wikis there is an arbcom that reviews cases. The key thing what happens there is that independent arbiters are reviewing the cases. Harassment and bullying can happen everywhere in every organisation, team or group. Stating that such is not allowed nor accepted is not enough. Yes, it is needed that it is written down, that is a good start. But as so important is the way how the review of complaints is organised. Such review must be in any case independent from every person involved in a complaint. And if a complaint is made by/about a team member, nobody from that team should be reviewing the complaint. Just like the Ombuds commission, the members of the review team should be independent, and be outside any organisation/team/etc. Having a Universal Code of Conduct is only half what we need, as the way how rules are enforced decides the success or failure of the code of conduct for our movement. Romaine (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In some ArbitrationCommissions I know of, there's no basic rule that arbiters have to be independent. Accounts are allowed to become ArbCom member when from that account a certain amount of editting has been done over a certain period. No knowledge or experience in law, mediation needed, no need for knowledge about official rules and policies governing their Wikimedia project. Agree fully with Romaine, when discussing enforcement, independent enforcing methods should be on (top of) the agenda. Preferably executed by wise people with know-how and experience in legal decision making along arbitration - & mediation principles, Preferably not belonging to the local user group with extra technical rights. JustB 2001:16B8:1151:B800:4431:8CF8:4436:9C47 11:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I heartily endorse that proposal. This does however bring in the problem of language, particularly where smaller Wiki's are concerned. Consider for example the Scots language or sco:Scots leid. If a dispute within that Wikipedia had to be referred to an outside arbitration team, what language would they use. In that particular example, it can be assumed that everyone who edits in Scots can also edit in English, but what about other minority languages? As a solution, I propose that the default language should be English unless the independent team, after looking at the facts in front of them, decide otherwise. Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the deWP we have elected admins, with the possibility to force them to an re-election, if the community wants it, and separate, with higher requirements for suitability, elections for Schiedsrichter (arbs). Arbs have a defined legislative period of 2 years, with election half of them every year. I think this works quite fine (although others think otherwise). Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am sure that it works well for 99% of the time, as does the system of the EngWP. In the case of EngWP, when procedures go wrong, they go badly wrong and as things are at the moment, if somebody has been wrongly blocked from editing, it is impossible for them to go back because they have to acknowledge a fault that does not exist. An external appeal system should help sort that problem out. Martinvl (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

PEarley (WMF), you just entered twice the phrase "or in situations where consent cannot be communicated", right after each other. Eissink (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC).Reply

Thanks, Eissink. Just trying to work around an issue with a page move - will fix as soon as the page is editable! Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In section 2.1 [link: of different backgrounds] is not linking to anything. That phrase was introduced in this diff by User:PEarley (WMF) on 13 October 2020. Vexations (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fixed - that was a remnant from the old draft. Thanks for flagging, Vexations. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The section Why We Have a Universal Code of Conduct contains the phrase "We are committed to ensuring that it remains so, including by embracing this Code of Conduct and revisiting for updates as needed." (emphasis mine). What is the process for making such changes? Vexations (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Vexations: I have reproduced the English text currently at Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/FAQ#Periodic reviews below:

10. Will there be periodic reviews and amendments of the UCoC once it is formed? If yes, who will be responsible for doing that?

Yes. The Foundation’s Legal Department will host a review of the UCoC one year after the completed version of it is accepted by the Board. Succeeding reviews may be facilitated by emerging governance structures such as those recommended by the Movement Strategy process.

11. Who will review the policies in the future if an urgent need for change arises?

Like other Foundation-hosted policies, requests for urgent changes can be submitted to the Foundation’s Legal Department. The Legal Department has led community-driven amendment conversations in the past (for example, the 2014 Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment) and has a structure and process for facilitating these situations.

If you have additional questions, please let me know. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

From the text: "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field". Isn't "expectations" supposed to be "distinction"? it was changed from distinction to expectations in this edit. Vexations (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Vexations: Thank you for your question. That edit corrects a missing change from the Universal Code of Conduct/Board ratification change log: see Preamble change 2 for the explanation of the change from "distinction" to "expectations". Xeno (WMF) (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to translate it into Dutch. To say "Dit is van toepassing op alle deelnemers, zonder verwachtingen gebaseerd op leeftijd ..." is no longer a sentence that has any discernible meaning. We would typically use "onderscheid" (distinction). For example, a similar phrase from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "without distinction of any kind, such as race ..." is translated as "zonder enig onderscheid van welke aard ook, zoals ras". Not sure if this is also a problem in other languages. Vexations (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Same in german. I changed it, because I don't understand the english meaning of expecting sth because of someones age (maybe I expect an eldery person to move slower than a child?) but it does not make much sense. --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 13:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think they put this very meaning, but I agree that it sounds non-trivial. Something like: "do not expect the child that he does not understand what you are talking about". Iniquity (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some legal cautiousness would be good, when translating for communities in another jurisdiction - The wordings "without expectations" is a legal concept probably originating from the US jurisdiction and could be structured near the Dutch "zonder vooroordeel", "zonder vooringenomenheid" and German "Ohne Vorurteil". It's broader than zonder onderscheid. An example. Most people interact with other people from a certain perspective, a certain amount of knowledge and experience. When a person under 40 of age meets on the street a woman with grey hair that walks with a stick and asks the way to a farmacy, many people have expectations about this person and react accordingly. Based on their personal general expectations they for instance give directions in a loud voice, using simple wordings. The woman in fact is a former Olympic champion swimming, just had a hip-surgery and is founder and CEO of an international Digital Tech firm. What you did was "discriminiating on age" based on your general expectation. This is human, almost everyone does it and without these kind of behaverioural mechanism, interacting becomes very difficult. Not many people are aware of it though and awareness is one of the most important things to cope with inner expectations when you notice they make other people uncomfortable. The legal concept "without expectations" as such is probably not known in all other communities / jurisdictions. @Vexations: @Iniquity: JustB EU (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a lawyer, but I have never heard of "without expectations" as a legal concept. Are you referring to legal doctrine legitimate expectation? Vexations (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I also consider the phrase "without expectations" rather strange in this context. The cited rationale in Universal Code of Conduct/Board ratification change log refers to the word "distinguish" which was changed to "make exceptions"; this change seems fine. However, the given rationale does not explain the rather large change from "without distinction based on" to "without expectation based on" and in particular it does not refer to any US legal doctrine (whose existence a casual Google search cannot confirm). AxelBoldt (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Considering that this rule was mainly developed for non-English communities, it is very strange to see in it very narrow terms that are used only in English. Iniquity (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SPoore (WMF), Hey! When can I get some kind of answer? :) Iniquity (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Russian, I think that in other languages too, items from the harassment list are difficult to conceptualize under the word harassment. Is it possible to generalize this list under a different term? Iniquity (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is the most difficult term, which in most countries and languages is used only for the country and state. I think that it just needs to be replaced or expanded. At least for translators. I understand correctly that Good citizenship = Solidarism? Iniquity (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that. It's even almost unclear for me, not to mention translation of this term to Russian. Красный^{wanna talk?} 12:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll point out that this phrase -- "good citizenship" -- was uniformly objected to at an earlier draft of this code. (I am shocked -- shocked I tell you! -- to find that the Foundation has ignored input from the volunteers here!) Especially by native English speakers, who felt it imposed unwelcome duties upon volunteers. (I'm not familiar with the term "Solidarism", but if that is similar to democratic centralism, then I suspect it denotes the concept objected to here.) -- Llywrch (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Back translation from the German text would be Good Cooperation. The translation of Citizenship would be nationality or something along that lines. This is a very good example of the detachment of the monolingual anglocentrics from the real world. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thing there's meant a requirement for WMF-movement member (citizen) to strictly follow (without any exceptions, whether you are the Jimmy Wales or unregistered contributor or even just a viewer) their rights and responsibilities according to [WMF] 'law' policies. But I approve that's quite difficult to understand as WMF[-movement] is not a country (however I would like to have a WMF passport that have no limits $) I'd migrate to such 'country' - a multilingual and with no any borders worldwide - if it'd exists officially) and do not grant a citizenship in 'as usual' (for wordlwide majority) meaning of that word. Good to be rephrased to eradicate ambiguity (for UCoC readers not to be confused).85.238.102.83 19:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Russian, there is no term for insulting a group of participants on a specific basis. I think most languages don't have it either. Is it possible to use another word or turn this word into a phrase? Iniquity (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

en:List_of_ethnic_slurs has several examples of ethic slurs related to Russia. Does презрительное прозвище come close? Vexations (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Relatively yes, but it doesn't necessarily apply to a group of people. But if we are trying with such difficulty to come up with an analogue for Russian, can you imagine how difficult it can be in other languages? Iniquity (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why not to offer own word replacement options? "Slandering"/"calumny" is much more specific and wide-meaning enough, imho.85.238.102.83 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean an alternative in English? It seems to me that this term should simply be expanded with text. Iniquity (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

user:Iniquity, I mean word used in original text is hard to be understood (have too many meanings) to translate to other languages. As of what you propose - that's most good idea - clarification (with no place of any disambiguation) is quite important here. There is no need for brevity85.238.102.83 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is this concept widely used and interpreted in all languages? Is such a mention obligatory in the document? Iniquity (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

"This includes any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome."

In my experience, some users who insist on publishing badly sourced and badly written content will go into a rage after even the kindest of critical remarks. So upsetting them can be considered the most likely outcome of any such remark, and by the logic of this quoted sentence anyone making such a remark would thus be guilty of harassment.

"Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment."

So if behaviour is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a restricted, monocultural environment, it may not be considered harassment? If not, what is the point of specifying 'in a global, intercultural environment? Marrakech (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the main problem in that is much more global: people in the WMF try to apply their reality to all the world, and not only in social and cultural sphere: during zoom calls I also understood that different Wikimedia communities are now in different levels of development and face different levels and types of problems. And this policy text represents mostly Northern America communities view, so it was specified for "global intercultural" environment, as they want to see the world. They also specified sexual harrasment, but there are other, non-sexual forms of unwanted attention that don't even specified in this text. So in my opinion it's too raw and ratification of it by the Board was ahead of time; that drew a line between the Board and a community. Красный^{wanna talk?} 12:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Красный:Not agreed. Reality of human relationships is global thing. Trying to censorship (have a number of examples) some local project only because "you are powered" there and (most of cases while such activity) not wishing for someone (globally, neutral, who can oversee your actions) to knock you down (for example withdraw your addional rights you abuse other contributors with use of or at least warn you about your initial movement policy violating activity and restrict you to continue such activity) - that way doing anything uncontrolled - is the bad idea as "[unlimited, and therefore undisputed, for decades] power [obviously] corrupts". No guaranteed content and activity neutrality at local projects possible that case.

Other question you told os "that's too raw". It is. But that's ok, because that's:

• still unapproved (if you'll tell about what you mean under "there are other, non-sexual forms of unwanted attention" it can be discussed and, if it's not monocultured and really global, and not covered by already mentioned text, can be still added there.
• that's a baseline (every community can add anything they want not violationg baseline told there).85.238.102.83 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC) For creating an unique local policies (if needed).85.238.102.83 19:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

> or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.

• What is this piece of the policy about? What should it prevent and how should it be interpreted correctly? Do chats and mailings fall under this rule? Iniquity (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
• If a court of law requires that a Wikipedian give the personal details of another Wikipedian, which takes precedence - the court of law or the Wikimedia UCoC? May I suggest that the words "unless required to do so by a court of law" be appended to this phrase as this will clarify that the Wikimedia Foundation does not consider itself above the courts of law. Martinvl (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Ideally, no UCOC would expect a user to prioritize its terms over the law of any user's country. No matter how virtuous the terms nor how unjust the country. However, lacking any statement to the contrary we cannot be sure of these expectations here. -- Llywrch (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • May I put this into perspective - suppose that User:Eve libels User:Alice and as a result User:Alice incurs a financial loss outside Wikimedia's control (for example, she loses her job). User:Alice, knowing who User:Eve is, then sues User:Eve for libel setting a figure based on her loss of earnings. In order to do so, User:Alice will have to publicise User:Eve's real life name and address as such a case will be held in open court. As the draft UCoC stands, User:Alice can be penalised by Wikimedia projects for revealing User:Eve's personal details in public. Martinvl (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moved to Talk:Universal Code of Conduct#You really want to have forced use of special gender pronouns in the UCoC?. Iniquity (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Around September/October 2020 there was a call for review of the UCoC draft. Lots of people voiced their opinions in different languages: click. What happened to these reviews? Were they summarized, is there any report available or anything? Were these opinions taken into consideration or was it just making noises into the void? Yours, tufor (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moved to Talk:Universal Code of Conduct#Please replace the GAFAM survey by a survey on an ethically acceptable server. Iniquity (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

> Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff:
Are you talking about en:Wikipedia:Functionaries? Or all Functionaries with admins, interface-admins etc? Iniquity (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I made some edits to the policy text just now. They do not change its meaning. I made some phrases into sentences to achieve parallelism. I added commas between some elements of lists. This was bold of me but I was advised in the first of the Feb 20-21 SWAN meetings that it would be okay to go ahead with such edits. If someone finds it necessary to revert them, okay. This was the first chance I was aware of to see the text. -- econterms (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Econterms, the text was ratified by the board. I don't think that the ratified version should be changed. The UCoC itself should be changed a great deal, by making incremental and occasionally bold changes, until we arrive at a version that has community consensus. Vexations (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Vexations As declared by the Board on December 9th 2020, the text adopted is binding and enforceable for all Wikimedia projects (WMF Resolution: Approval Universal Code of Conduct. How do you see a method or process like community consensus could change this policy and how much time you estimate, will this take? Thanks JustB EU (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JustB EU: Isn't the right question the opposite of this one... since when can the Board create policy by fiat, without community support? They're entitled to create policy for the WMF and WMF employees, but that doesn't extend to the community as a whole, unless the community had delegated that to the WMF.

As a thought experiment, would the WMF Board be able to create content policy by similar fiat? TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 16:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TomDotGov: WMF believes when they do not touch content, they can not be held responsible as publisher. For the rest, WMF as owner legally is allowed and competent to design all rules they think appropriate for running the corporation and it's projects. No legal obligation to ask community first, no mandate needed. There however is an interesting co-dependency. Without servers no Wikipedia for volunteers - without volunteers no Wikipedia for Foundation & affiliates (no fame, no wages for their employees).JustB EU (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JustB EU: They're legally allowed to do a lot of things - they could replace the front page with a licensed copy of the "Honey Badger Don't Care" video, and they'd probably be fine as a charity with a educational purpose. That being said, support of the community is necessary for the mission - this isn't like facebook, where most of the content is produced for self-interested reason. This is why it's important that the community remain in control of policy, and why it's important to not accept the WMF's attempts to overstep its mandate. Just because the WMF employees or the mostly-unelected board say something is a policy, doesn't mean it is. That's not how policies are ratified, and so the community should work to make a policy we can accept. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 19:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TomDotGov: The Board cannot create policy by fiat. The UCoC is, of course, neither binding nor enforceable, and is not Wikimedia policy in any real sense, whatever the Board may say. --Yair rand (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

JustB EU How do you see a method or process like community consensus could change this policy and how much time you estimate, will this take? I think it will be difficult. Some simple copy-edits can easily be agreed upon. The changes that Econterms made are straightforward. Those changes should be uncontroversial. Additionally, we should improve the readability of the Code. The policy text page has a Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease score of 35.8. We should not have a code that is best understood by university graduates. It should have been written in plain English that can be understood by a 13-year old. We are already having discussions about enforcement. Some elements of the Code may turn out to be unenforceable. Those will have to be revised or removed. The code itself contains a clause that refers to updates: We are committed to ensuring that it remains so, including by embracing this Code of Conduct and revisiting for updates as needed.(emphasis mine) The sooner we propose the needed changes, the better. The way to do that is to rewrite the code using our own wiki editing process. I don't think we should do that in the policy text, because that has already been ratified. We ought to set up an alternative page and start editing. Vexations (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe the text has been ratifed, from the community's perspective. As I wrote below, I'd suggest we move the WMF-Only version to its own page, and resume editing here. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 00:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

TomDotGov & Vexations From the official WMF Board Resolution is clear, the UCoC is enforceable as of the 9th of December 2020. When content creators and other volunteer workers in the communities do not agree on policing the UCoC for the WMF, it's up to the WMF to enforce, right? See 1 - Introduction,: "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. JustB EU (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JustB EU: Sure, that's what the board resolution says. Now the question is, does the board resolution have any meaning? Wikimedia isn't Facebook, where the legal owner can just do whatever they want - or at least, I'm hoping that it hasn't gotten so bad that the Foundation sees itself as another Facebook. At least traditionally, the community has had the ability to veto Foundation actions that didn't benefit the movement - see en:WP:FRAM for a still-recent example of what happened when the Foundation tried to impose sanctions without the community's consent.

A far better approach will be for the community to update the policy, and then for the Board to accept an updated policy that the community is willing to abide by and enforce. This isn't that policy, as I think that everyone agrees there are easily-addressable flaws in the policy. Best to set aside the WMF-only curiosity, and work on something useful to the movement. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! The HUngarian text blocks (paragraphs) are completely misaligned to the EN text (work weeks now) and since I don't seem to be able to directly edit the section numbering I cannot even start updating. Could someone either put them back in sync or tell me how could I edit the raw text to fix up the paragraph markers? Doing it in the click-click-click UI would be a nightmare. Thanks! --grin ✎ 08:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been manually resolved this. No comment. --grin ✎ 11:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Copy edits make unclear, what the original and official text is as approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on December 9, 2020 (Resolution Approval Universal Code of Conduct). It would be good for clarity, when the original text will be published here as PDF and audiofile. Thanks JustB EU (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) +Reply

JustB EU: The page currently hosted at Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text is serving a dual purpose in 1) providing a platform for interlingual (cross-wiki) and international coordination to discuss and perform translations of this specific version of the code; and 2) mirroring a specific English version of the code from the Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki. The page itself remains editable for community coordination (for example, there is a community-editable information box) while everything below the Level 1 heading "Universal Code of Conduct" up to the navigation box should be an exact English copy of the policy text found at Foundation:Universal Code of Conduct. It is currently being translated to be presented to many communities for consideration. Following your question, a notice was added clarifying the origin and status of the page text. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Xeno:Thank you for the clarifying feedback. All the best, also for your colleagues. JustB EU (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

We're kind of at a crossroads when it comes to this page, as WMF staff is using the need to translate the version of this page that the Board ratified as a way of instituting page protection, out of policy. This is preventing the community from doing the work of creating a code of conduct policy using the usual consensus process.

What I'd suggest doing is to copy this page to the something like [[Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text/WMF-Only], and then work here to see if we could develop a version that applies to the community. I believe that what User:BChoo (WMF) is doing is to use the need for translation of the obsolete version to prevent needed improvements, like the ones that User:Econterms provided. That's not really useful for developing a version of this policy that would apply to the entire community, and not just the WMF.

I fundamentally think it's wrong for WMF staff to use the translation system as a way to institute a form of page protection for a page that hasn't achieved community consensus. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 00:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

To translate a legal text, enforceable worldwide, it needs not only be transferred from one language to another, but also from one legal system into another. The wordings and concepts as being drafted by the WMF Board need to be reviewed for any other jurisduction it is meant to be enforced in. What for instance is being meant with without expectations in a legal sense?

Furthermore does the EU has a different approach to privacy than the US, due to massive historical experiences with dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in many countries, from Germany and Greece, to Poland and Portugal. So enforcement, conflict-handling and dispute-solving probably needs a basically different structure in the EU than in the US.

To make the UCoC work in as many projects as possible, for as many people as possible, imho translations should therefore not only be handled by engaged volunteers, WMF Staffers and translation machines. Collaboration should be set up with professional legal translators / interpreters and legal experts in all separate jurisdictions. That ofcourse can be Wikipedians.

Last but ot least translations in the legal field should only be done from the official, approved unchangeable policy text and not from this page. The official text seems to be published here: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct Cheers JustB EU (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC) FYI: @Iniquity: @PEarley (WMF): @NahidSultan (WMF):Reply

This is probably covered somewhere else, but hopefully someone can help me understand: what does "problems" refer to in the subheading "hounding"? Does it refer to the immediate cause that triggers someone to check their colleagues' edits (e.g. user A finds three copyright violations by user B, then the "problems" would be copyright violations) or is it following around (e.g. user B told user A that they don't like it when every upload is debated on copyright grounds, and the "problems" would be the debating of copyright status)? I can very well imagine a scenario where user A thinks that they are just checking legitimate concerns while user B is convinced that user A only does this to upset them. It's ambivalent to me which of the two is being referred to. I'm also at a loss why this specific bullet has the reference to communication first and established procedures later, and for example not 'trolling'. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I came here to ask the same thing. I would simply remove the sentence "If problems are continuing after efforts to communicate and educate, communities may need to address them through established community processes." This is enforcement advice that doesn't belong in the Code of Conduct. AxelBoldt (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that we use "behaviour" 13 times and "behavior" twice, including once in a heading. Which variety of English is the UCoC written in? Vexations (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

why this "when linguistically and technically feasable", it's a bit of non-sens no? Because if people use special terms to describe themselves (so language) that is linguistically possible, so in all cases of people using those specific terms it's linguistically and technically feasable (maybe excepted for somes neuroatypics people). If it wasn't linguistically and technically feasable, those people couldn't describe themselves... isn't it? So why this sentecnes which is, finally, not useful ? Please excuse my english wich isn't really goodScriptance (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it’s mainly about the gender-specific or gender-neutral addressing. Someone may choose to be addressed in English as a feminine she, masculine he, or the gender-neutral singular they. However, there’s not really a concept in German for the third one, so if I wrote in German about someone who wants to be addressed as they, I can’t simply translate it, but rather I would probably use er/sie (literally he/she), which is more or less appropriate for people who simply don’t want to disclose their gender, but not really appropriate for non-binary people (who are neither er nor sie). Also, when writing some kind of software (MediaWiki translation, templates etc.), it may be technically impossible to query the user-in-question’s preferred addressing, so one may be forced to use a gender-neutral (to the extent it’s possible in that language) addressing even if it’s not the one preferred by that user. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tacsipacsi: Thanks for your answer. Yes but once you talked to a gender specif or gender neutral person, she told you her pronouns (which can be er/sie) or you negociate with her a way to address her, so the situation is resolved. Nice to mention the software, on this point I think it's to the foundation to developp way to solve the problem. Maybe it's should be more "depending of the software" Scriptance (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Scriptance: But if you talked to someone in English and know that the person wants to be referred to as “they”, you still don’t know how to address them in German. Or talked to someone but the pronoun the person uses was never mentioned (it’s unlikely to happen in in-person conversations, but well possible in online communication). Or you might have never talked to someone, yet you want to mention this person in third person. The same goes for the software: there’s already a solution to choose one of three pronouns in the preferences (female, male, other/prefer not to say), and this is all what’s possible to do in a language-independent way—how could one choose from the many German possibilities if this person doesn’t speak German at all? Yet for example Meta’s German user interface needs to address this person somehow. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tacsipacsi: If you talked to someoene in english, why do you to talk to they in german (especially if they don't speak german??) . by the way, it's still better to us [er/sie] form, or a [neutral pronoun] or here. I mean, the NB communities are providing lexical and grammatical tools online, so use it? There is also a WP article in german about this. There is ressources, try to do yor best; and if the person see that you really tried, our mistakes (if yo do mistakes) will be accepted. Scriptance (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Scriptance: This issue is (at least in German) not when talking to someone, but when talking about someone—if you talk to someone, you can simply use du or Sie (depending on how formal you want to be, independently of any gender issues). And one will definitely choose German if the person they’re talking to doesn’t speak English, even if the person they’re talking about does. Try to do your best—this is essentially the same as when linguistically feasible. I can (and I, personally, do) try my best, but sometimes it’s impossible to be completely gender-neutral when it would be needed. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, the scope of the Universal Code of Conduct is too narrow. It currently deals primarily with the issue of personal attacks. Two suggestions for improvement:

1. What about other violations, such as misappropriation of donations? In the German translation of the UCoC, a subordinate clause has been added to the "Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff" section on this, although there is nothing in the original text.

2. Unfortunately also simple rules of conduct and politeness towards other Wikipedia users must be written down. I myself have unfortunately come across a long-time, deserving user of Wikipedia who writes in a colloquial style on the German talk pages. I find this method of communication burdensome. Here the prohibition of personal attacks in the German Wikipedia is not enough. In my opinion, also Meta:Civility should be improved. See the talk page.

– Gebu (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Could anybody provide examples of behaviors aimed by the last bullet of the text, "The use of symbols, images, categories, tags or other kinds of content that are intimidating or harmful to others outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use. This includes imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize" ? I don't really see what they mean...

Best, JohnNewton8 (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Eissink: The policy text says During in-person meetings, we will be welcoming to everyone and we will be mindful and respectful of each others’ preferences, boundaries, sensibilities, traditions and requirements. I have found it difficult to translate "requirements" into something intelligible in Dutch. It's not immediately obvious to me what requirements means, and there are a number of possible translations for the term, depending on context. Am I right to assume that "requirements" here refers to something like a scent-free policy or a food allergen policy, where a participant requires that others refrain from something because it is hazardous to their health? Vexations (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Vexations. I found it a bit hard to translate "requirements" too, after I saw your use of "vereisten". "Vereisten" appeared to me to be something like a "demand" that someone could impose onto the other, which didn't seem correct to me. You might be right in assuming that the "requirements" refer to f.i. food allergen and the like, but the English original is not really clear to me on that point either. In any case, if it were to refer to allergies etc., I would not understand how anyone else could be respectful of those, because it goes without saying (I hope) that one does not force another person to eat. In other words: I really don't know, but "vereisten" came a bit too strong for me – I don't think someone should or could "eis" (demand) anything from another Wikipedian, except of course the general respect that is the subject of the paragraph. Therefor I thougt "voorwaarden" is better than "vereisten", but now that I'm thinking about it: that word too has the connotation of "demand", so I think it's better to first try to find out what is actually meant by "requirements". Thanks for remarks, greeting, Eissink (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

Maybe "benodigdheden" is the best translation here, or maybe even better: "(levens)behoeften/behoeftes". Eissink (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

Here's an example from my personal experience: I am a member of a group where we have (among other policies) a no-cellphone policy because one member is convinced that they have electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). I think that that person is mistaken, and that turning off cellphones but leaving all kinds of other devices that emit electromagnetic radiation on is silly, but I still respect that person and our policy and turn my phone off. The policy is unreasonable on its scientific merits, but if not adhered to, would prevent this person from participating. This person's belief that they have EHS doesn't interfere with the purpose of the group, and they are a valued contributor. The group values his participation over the "right" to have a cellphone turned on. I guess you could think of it as conditions (voorwaarden) that need to be met to enable people to participate. This is potentially very broad, and it could covert thing like "I need people to not smoke in my presence" and "I need be able to breastfeed my baby". If we mean "what I need to be able to participate" then "behoefte" covers that for me. Vexations (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Then "behoeften" it is, I will change it. As said, even "voorwaarden", like "vereisten" has something unnegotiable, so they are hardly something to 'respect', they are more like rigid demands. Thanks for discussing this, greeting, Eissink (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

I hope everyone changing the text is aware that every change needs to be translated to a large amount of languages (and it needs to be re-reviewed as well, possibly marking already finished translations outdated and incomplete again). I hope everyone have a damn good reason to do a change, preferably backed up by a discussion. Yes, I mean the last two changes of the lead ambox. :-( --grin ✎ 11:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am very much aware of this, and I'm sorry that this additional workload needed to be dumped on the translators, but the change really was very necessary. Previous discussion on the same wording issue took place in multiple threads on Talk:Universal Code of Conduct. (No comment on the edit prior to mine.) --Yair rand (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Any idea how to make the Hungarian (or any) translation appear on the WMF main page? --grin ✎ 14:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The link to the Board of Trustees at Universal Code of Conduct currently points to a re--direct page. I'd fix that but, as it turns out, "You can not edit this page!" Nor can you post to its talk page nor can you leave any feedback. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

What is meant by "unmotivated" in UCC 3.3? I'm guessing "baseless" or something similar. But that is just a guess. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The writers, as far as I know, have never responded to any public question about what a word or phrase in the UCoC policy text means. I find that frustrating, but expect that it is deliberate. In this case, there is the common usage of "unmotivated" as "lacking a reason" that seems to be what they meant: Repeatedly removing content without giving a reason. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Given that "unmotivated" has an alternative meaning (lacking in enthusiasm), I encourage "the writers" to substitute "baseless," "unexplained," or something similar for "unmotivated." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I translated the text into Dutch, perhaps THE easiest language to translate to from English, and came across other instances of word choices that are problematic because they are open to multiple interpretations and do not translate well. Other languages must be even harder. Please consider rewriting the UCoC in what Katherine Maher recently referred to as "ESL fiendly" in her farewell letter. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like it already might be "ESL fiendly". Seraphimblade (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have made this point elsewhere, but understand from @Xeno (WMF): that is the correct place to raise it. I am concerned that the UCoco text includes the following:

"Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not. (Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for personal attacks.)"

The note is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. What is "the Wikipedia movement"? Is this a synonym for WMF, the Board, or is it an attempt to speak for all contributors on all projects?
2. A contributor to this project may feel that their "race" and "ethnicity" are an extremely meaningful part of their self identity. Ironically, they may feel harassed if these characteristics are dismissed out of hand. Saying that these are not endorsed as "meaningful distinctions" is a potentially divisive political statement. It has not place in the UCoC.
3. Why are only "race" and "ethnicity" single out, does that mean that by implication WMF (or worse all contributors, if that is what "Wikimedia movement" means) do endorse the other characteristics listed as meaningful distinctions among people (e.g. caste, disability?)!?!

The note requires urgent attention. I am seriously troubled that the Board appears to have endorsed this language. Have other concerns about the text been addressed by the WMF and/or the Board since the UCoC was endorsed by the Board? I am interested to know if there is a genuine collaboration occurring with Wikimedia projects about the UCoC or whether it is being implemented from above without regard to legitimate issues raised by contributors. This talk page sadly suggests the latter. WJBscribe (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

This phrasing is just coming to my attention and am seeking out information/changes/discussion that may have happened in the interim of your comments @Xeno (WMF): and @WJBscribe:. It is disconcerting to have this phrasing included in the first place and further that the language remains and is ratified by the board. This is a critical concern of our group Black Lunch Table Wikimedians. What actions can be taken at this time?--Raggachampiongirl (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, no one from the WMF has ever engaged with me in relation to my comment above. Although there was a community ratification of the proposed enforcement mechanism for the UCoC, the language of the UCoC has never been subject to wider community debate or ratification, nor has a process for amending the UCoC been accepted by WMF. WJBscribe (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Raggachampiongirl/WJBscribe: The review of the original policy text has not occurred as yet. The just-concluded phase was about the new set of guidelines. We have documented feedback about this passage for the review. In the interim, the passage is discussed on wikimedia-l. In the thread, next possible steps about possible amendments were outlined. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Xeno (WMF)Thanks for this update, trying to make sure I stay in the discussion! Raggachampiongirl (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again Raggachampiongirl. By way of update, this has also been written about here, by the Board Community Affairs Committee. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing it was some accidental translation. I didn't check for other Translations:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text/*/qqq pages yet... Reedy (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

MariaDB [metawiki]> select page_title from page where page_namespace = 1198 and page_title LIKE 'Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/%/qqq';
+----------------------------------------------+
| page_title                                   |
+----------------------------------------------+
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/32/qqq |
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/52/qqq |
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/64/qqq |
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/81/qqq |
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/83/qqq |
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/85/qqq |
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/87/qqq |
| Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/90/qqq |
+----------------------------------------------+
8 rows in set (0.013 sec)

Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/32/qqq, Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/52/qqq, Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/64/qqq, Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/81/qqq, Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/83/qqq, Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/85/qqq, Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/87/qqq, Translations:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text/90/qqq - at least one has been blanked... I would suggest they are moved to appropriate talk pages, or just deleted. As they don't meet the qqq criteria for message docs. Reedy (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I dont know where to put this, but there are several heated discussions on fr wiki concerning the use of gendered denominations for "users" and "participants". In French, the word "participant", "utlisateur" or "contributeur" is gendered, it is the masculine word. There is wide spread antagonism to use more inclusive language, although a poll in 2020 has shown that women contributors would be in favor of it. Alas, due to an under representation of women and other gender identities (non binary, trans ect) any proposition to change this way of adressing causes backlash and aggressivity. Now the new code of conduct states (under mutual respect)ː

ːRespect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible. Examples include: Ethnic groups may use a specific name to describe themselves, rather than the name historically used by others; People may have names that use letters, sounds, or words from their language which may be unfamiliar to you; People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns; People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves During in-person meetings, we will be welcoming to everyone and we will be mindful and respectful of each others’ preferences, boundaries, sensibilities, traditions and requirement.

ːIt is unclear wether this covers, for French (but I suppose for German, Italian, Spanish ect) the way contributors are adressed generically on online project pages or communication (like when chapters write to their members, or on project pages citing "users", "contributors" or "participants" for example see here ) as a group. Can the generic name misgender group of contributors? Will it be allowed? To some it seems trivial, to others, like me, working on Diversity and inclusion, using a masculine term constitutes a mass misgendering. It is present everywhere on the encyclopedia, remindering us constantly that anything feminine and non masculine is devoid of interest as it is not named and visible for all to see. The new code of conduct does not adress that specifically, and this should be discussed when setting up the enforcement guidelines. IMO generic terms should be inclusive, otherwise more than half of the potential population that could contribute could not feel included du to implicit biases. I dont know where to post this, nor if this is the correct place to do it, so please tell me where to put this comment if this is not the correct place. Nattes à chat (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• How is this problem handled in French-speaking countries? In the Netherlands, terms such as "gebruik(st)er" are frequently used - "gebruiker" being the Dutch word for "[masculine] user" and "gebruikster" being the Dutch word for "[feminine] user". I have however yet to see this convention being adopted in English - in theory we could write "shepherd(ess)". In general, I think that Wikimedia should follow the local conventions rather then trying to define its own one-size-fits-all approach. Martinvl (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Nattes à chat: I am interested in hearing more about this and have set up a meeting for francophone users, which I hope you can attend. Please extend this invitation to any interested users, groups, or venues. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hounding: following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them. If problems are continuing after efforts to communicate and educate, communities may need to address them through established community processes.

For a while this said "otherwise satisfactory work", but that was quietly removed a few months ago, after many of us who raised this issue earlier stopped paying attention to this page. I want a simple, straight answer here:

1. Alice registers an account. She makes an edit, adding a vulgar word to a random page
2. Bob notices this, reverts her edit, and warns her
3. Alice makes three more edits, adding vulgarities to random pages
4. Bob checks Alice's contributions, reverts all her edits, wand warns her more harshly
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 a few more times
6. Bob goes to bed. He'll report Alice in the morning if she's still vandalizing, but otherwise won't bother to alert anyone.
7. Alice complains to T&S

Now:

• Bob is "following" Alice.
• Bob is repeatedly reverting and "critiquing" her work.
• Bob is very much intending to "discourage" Alice from adding any more vulgar words.
• Bob has not alerted anyone else, so there hasn't been any "established community processes".

So how is Bob not now in violation of the UCoC? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to the Universal Code of Conduct/Board ratification change log, the removal of "otherwise satisfactory" was because The Board recognizes that volunteers play a critical role in making sure people are contributing constructively to the sites. We do want to be clear that hounding people even for mistakes is not appropriate behavior. Accordingly, we are embracing as a minimum standard that after initial efforts to correct and educate users, responsibility for addressing ongoing problems should shift from the individual to community processes. The board seems to think that Bob is now in violation of the UCoC. Vexations (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

But Bob definitely isn't, and should not be by any decent definition. Troll-support should not be the outcome of the UCoC. I'll ping the one who posted the change log. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) Hold the election 11:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

(Late to the party)

Is Bob reverting and critiquing Alice "mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them"? As I understand your hypothetical, he is not; his main intent is to prevent the addition of vandalous content to wiki pages. For this reason, Bob is not in violation of the UCoC.

I'm not sure whether UCoC violations should depend on a person's subjective goals: those can be hard to assess. But it is very common for legal codes to rely upon such things. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

I believe that the word "maliciously" must be explaned here because a controversy is just two or more parties trying to cause each other to doubt (ideally - to reject) their perception or understanding. So without thorough explanation what is and what is not "malicious" in respect to this matter, there would be a room for censorship under the guise of "discouraging psychological manipulation". Эйхер (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a sentence (in the English version) that I found confusing as written. In section 2.1, within the bullet point about "Assume good faith", there is the sentence: "All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact." I find the part after the comma difficult to understand, and I suspect that it needs to be revised. If all Wikimedians are assuming good faith, then I cannot see how that possibly could be "used to justify statements with a harmful impact". It's not logically a "but" clause, and think that it either needs to be rewritten more clearly or removed from the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nachdem gerade die Hauptseiten imho eher merkbefreit verschoben wurden, sollten die Links auf diese Seiten auch bitteschön angepasst werden, das gehört beim Verschieben schlicht dazu. Ich habe gerade die Vorlage Template:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Version_history linkgefixt, da muss mal einer das Übersetzungsfreigabedingsda drüber jagen. User:BChoo (WMF), walte Deines Amtes! Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gerade gesehen: Für diese ordinäre Verschiebung gab es ein Ticket im Phab, was ist das denn für ein grandioser Unsinn? Was hat der Phab mit irgendwelchen Verschiebungen hier in diesem Wiki zu tun? Das ist doch kompletter Unsinn, dafür nach extern zu gehen. Können die Leute mit einem (WMF) denn überhaupt kein Wiki? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Sänger: Übersetzbare Seiten mit vielen Übersetzungen (mindestens 500 Seiten zu verschieben) können seit etwa vier Monaten leider nur von Systemadministratoren (mit direktem Serverzugriff) verschoben werden, weil die Spezialseite zu unzuverlässig war. Systemadministratoren sind in der Regel auf Phabricator, eine auf WMF-Servern laufende, mit Wikimedia-Benutzerkonten nutzbare (also nicht externe) Website, zu erreichen. – Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following is said to be unacceptable harassment:

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

1. As written, this actually forbids any discussion of another contributor's Wikimedia activity outside the projects, regardless of whether any private information is revealed or not, unless they give their explicit permission. If you parse the sentence, you arrive at this: The following is said to be unacceptable harassment: [(1) ... or (2)] sharing information concerning [other contributors'] Wikimedia activity outside the projects. Could this be remedied?

2. As for "place of employment", how will this affect Wikimedians' ability to discuss cases like the following, either on Wikimedia projects or elsewhere? Is it the drafters' view that any of the editors involved in these cases were victims of harassment as a result of their activities being discussed on-wiki or elsewhere?

• en:Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
• en:Orangemoody_editing_of_Wikipedia
• en:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia
• en:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

3. What about cases like the ones listed below? Is it the drafters' view that any of the editors involved ("David r from Meth Productions", "Wifione", "Qworty") were victims of harassment as a result of their activities being discussed on-wiki or elsewhere?

• The tale of Mr Hari and Dr Rose
• Manipulating Wikipedia to Promote a Bogus Business School
• Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia

Thanks, --Andreas JN466 12:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

A further shortcoming of this definition is that it implicitly puts Wikimedia above the law. If somebody libels me on Wikipedia and as a result I lose my job, I will want to get compensation. The Wikimedia Foundation is unable to compensate me unless I sue them in California and then I am limited to $1000, but if I can track the miscreant down and sue them in a court that is local to both the themselves and myself, then I will have to disclose the miscreant's name to the courts before I can instiutute legal proceedings. Where does this stand with the definition of harassment?Martinvl (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have asked about these cases on the Wikimedia-l mailing list: [1] --Andreas JN466 16:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

When are we going to see dates changed at &oldid=22673170, or in January 2022, being propagated to internationalization? FYI, in /ja, dates are much advanced than what I see on /en. @YShibata (WMF):? --Omotecho (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've marked the page for translation, so the date update can now be translated. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 20:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kindly see as of February 28, 2022 the en template text reads December 9, 2020, but not February 2, 2021.

Are we sure the date should be December 2020, not February 2021? I changed ja translation by supplying the ratification date. Why we time travel back nearly 60 days?

IMHO, dates are critical; The text confuses local community reading 2 February 2021 the date of ratification over and over again elsewhere, then on UCoC pages, template shows another date.

• Do we mend the description somehow then use December date?

-- Omotecho (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Currently, section 3.1 reads

We strive towards the following behaviours: … Mutual support and good citizenship means taking active responsibility for ensuring that the Wikimedia projects are productive, pleasant and safe spaces (emphasis modified).

I am extremely concerned by the inclusion of this term in the English-language text. Perhaps we should understand it as a literal translation of the German ungefährliche Gesellschaft ("an organization that is not dangerous"). But I worry that the concept would undergo — indeed, has already undergone — semantic creep. (The official German translation is instead sichere Orte, which (this non-German believes) means the non sequitur "secure locations".)

The term "safe space" is commonly used in English-language text to indicate places where one can avoid not only physical attacks or personal harassment, but exposure to ideas whose consequences threaten one's person.¹ The value of safe spaces is extremely polarizing,² making the concept unsuitable for use in a global, multicultural code of conduct.

Worse, safe spaces have a reputation for prohibiting discussion of hate speech,² although it is certainly necessary for (say) Wikipedia to include articles explaining various forms of hate speech throughout history.³ In this way, usage of "safe spaces" risks (at least) appearing antithetical to the most famous Wikimedia project.

One possible change to avoid this unnecessarily inflammatory term is "…Wikimedia projects are productive, pleasant, and do not threaten contributors' personal safety." There are many others, I am sure. Please consider changing it. Thank you, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

¹ A good place to start is English wikipedia's article. For a more pointed take, see Judith Shulevitz's New York Times op-ed In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas, in which she points out that many of these safe spaces exist to satisfy legal requirements to "prevent speech that may inflict psychological damage on a member of a protected class" (emphasis added).

² See the citations in en:Safe space#Criticism.

³ Rather than link to many, many examples, I'll just link to en:Hate speech, and let interested readers follow the links therein. One might argue that tolerance of encyclopedic discussion of hate speech is a peculiarity of (say) the American legal system. I disagree: I use English Wikipedia links here because I am a native English speaker, but the article exists in 44 other languages.

I support the ratification. While I can't vote, I would like to encourage others to vote yes on these proposals. Also, I have a question: How often is this voting? BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible

I already pointed it out, but nobody bring me valid answer.

The fact is that in linguistic, there's the hypotetical words which doesn't exist in use but are a possibility (ex "leaf"+ "-less" = "leafless", it doesn't exist in use but it's linguistically correct and respect the way adjectives including the idea of without/loss are forms from nouns, like in topless or braless) and by so are linguistically feasible, there's also the words that does exist in use and, indeed, are possibility, and by so are linguistically feasible (it's the case of singular they, and other non binary pronouns are ze, xe,em, per, etc). Its the same things for other languages, french (iel, al ul ol ael etc) german (dey, hen, em, sier, and en) spanish (elle).

There's not linguistic obstacle to the respect of pronouns of someone, so why add this term ? It should be removed.

Same for "technically". The only technique we use to wrote those non binary pronouns is keyboard, and all the letter we need to wrote them are on keyboard and nothing can physically nor technically stop us from typing the letter in the good order to write a non binary pronouns. The only obstacle is an ideologic one (conservative and enbyphobic) but it's not connected to technique. So the add of the word "technically" open the door to ideological conservative abuse and should be removed. (Same for linguistically).

The add of those words don't follow the path of inclusion of the UCoC and need to be removed. Scriptance (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this. There is no need to add "linguistically or technically feasible" unless one is openly willing to accept misgendering as a principle. Hyruspex (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Scriptance (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I support adoption of the UCoC. (That I am leaving a comment for improvement does not imply I am rejecting the proposed UCoC)

Regarding protected class enumeration, it seems intersex people were forgotten. Typically nondiscrimination statements that explicitly protect intersex people add the term "sex characteristics." Granted, I am not intersex, so I am not the authority to consult on this. Hopefully in practice protections would apply under "other characteristics" or the definitions of sex/gender/etc.

In part 2 (Expected behavior) it reads "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field." In Part 3.1 (Unacceptable behavior-->Harassment) it reads "Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics."

Is there a way sex characteristics can be added? Or maybe also gender expression for trans, gender non-conforming, and nonbinary people?

Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think intersex and trans/enby people are already protected by the UCoC through the use of "gender,sex" words. Scriptance (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The sentence

We want these communities to be positive, safe and healthy environments for anyone who joins (and wants to join) them.

sounds clunky to me. How about

We want these communities to be positive, safe and healthy environments for all participants and anyone who wants to join.

AxelBoldt (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is the section "Why we have a Universal Code of Conduct" actually part of the Code of Conduct? It refers for instance to the goal of verifiability which does not occur anywhere else in the Code. Also, much of this section would fit better in the Introduction section.

Especially the last two lengthy paragraphs, listing all the situations were the Code applies, do not answer the question "Why we have a Universal Code of Conduct". That material belongs elsewhere. AxelBoldt (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In section 3.3, the insertion of "(and/or maintenance)" is clunky; there's no need for the "and" nor for the parentheses. I would write

Deliberately introducing biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content, or hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation or maintenance of content.

AxelBoldt (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Recommend adding "profession" to the list in the Insults section. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The intro says:

We want these communities to be positive, safe and healthy environments for anyone who joins (and wants to join) them. We are committed to ensuring that it remains so, including by embracing this Code of Conduct and revisiting for updates as needed. Also, we wish to protect our projects against those who damage or distort the content.

This reads as if written by committee (which it undoubtedly was) with the last sentence added as an afterthought. I would say

We want these communities to be positive, safe and healthy environments for all participants and anyone who wants to join. We also wish to protect our projects from those who damage or distort the content. We commit to these principles by embracing this Code of Conduct and revisiting for updates as needed.

AxelBoldt (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply