Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Roundtable discussions/sv
|For conversation hours on the September-October 2022 community consultation on the revised Enforcement Guidelines, see Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Conversation hours.|
|Denna sida av Wikimedia Foundation bevaras av historiska skäl. Alla planer, regler, projekt eller strategier som nämns kan vara inaktuella.|
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team is hosting discussions in Roundtable and Conversation Hour formats for Wikimedians to talk together about Universal Code of Conduct and upcoming ratification for Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines.
The calls usually last between 60 and 120 minutes, and will include a 5-10 minute introduction about the purpose of the call, followed by open discussions. Please sign up ahead of time to join.
- Future call dates:
- To be announced
- Previous calls: The summaries of the Roundtables and Conversation Hours created primarily using the shared Etherpad notes are available for review and editing by participants.
Please sign up below if you wish to attend by using four tildes (~~~~). The discussions will be held on Zoom. Links to the meetings will be provided on this page a few days before they occur. The calls will not be recorded. Participation via video or audio is not required; participants may engage using text chat.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the Universal Code of Conduct discussions so far!
Participants from the Wikimedia Foundation may include:
- Trust and Safety Policy Team members
- Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 Drafting committee
- Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team will host a conversation hours to discuss the drafting committee's changes to the enforcement guidelines and the community ratification process. Feel free to bring your topics to discuss with facilitators and participants.
- Date: March 4th, 15:00 - 16:30 UTC
- Meeting link: Finished
- 15:00-15:15: Welcome, overview of project and introductions of key participants
- 15:20-16:10: Discussion for each key topics; Trust and Safety Policy Team and Drafting committee members will answer the questions.
- _TrueMayItBe (talk) 14:38
- —DerHexer (Talk) 14:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Maybe.
- NANöR (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Aishik Rehman (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 20:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC) please ping if I dont appear
- Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Tiputini (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- --Lea Volz (WMDE) (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- そらみみ (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- --Gnom (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- --Hogü-456 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- --VZP10224 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- -- Protais (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Musa Vacho77 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Xelgen (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Kunokuno (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- --Erokhin (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- laminelebron Laminelebron (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Sénégal
- --1233 （T / C） 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ponor (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- -- Nehaoua (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- --RottenApple777 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- --Omotecho (talk_to_me_on_meta, or on_jawiki) 03:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- --Vera Krick (WMDE) (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- --SCP-2000 12:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- abi 126.96.36.199 19:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Questions and discussion topics
Feel free to add questions or topics of interest below. You are not required to pre-submit the questions but this will ensure your questions are being answered during conversation hour.
- Regarding the current status of UCoC phase 1 policy text, can local community sentencing someone who violate UCoC policy text per UCoC policy at this moment that UCoC enforcement guideline has not been ratified yet ?
- It can expected that U4C need to handle a huge number of complicated cases. How can ensure U4C has enough capacity to handle these cases?
- In order to promote its visibility, a link to the UCoC should be present on: ... Anywhere else deemed appropriate by local projects Any requirement of that?
- Regarding the vote, A “Comment” box will provide a place for you to leave comments on any concerns you have with the proposed guidelines. Any language allow?
- Thanks. SCP-2000 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Another questions regarding the current status of UCoC policy, should off-wiki communication platform (e.g. IRC channel) need to follow UCoC policy at present? Should local community and off-wiki communication platform need to create their own enforcement guideline at present? If no, then what is the current status of UCoC phase 1 policy text? --SCP-2000 05:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Relativly many people have been engaged to discuss Right to be Heard and it seems that they fear that the current guidelines seem to be biased a bit towards protection of targets of harassment and victim support and that they might not be protecting the accused enough. I know from my own work that platforms have some legal obligations to protect targets of harassment. Can you explain how the Foundation thinks about the balance of the rights of the accused and the rights of the targets of harassment? --Vera Krick (WMDE) (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- How do you plan to cope with people who have been making assumptions about the proposed guidelines? It seems that many, not all, have not even read the proposed guidelines entirely.
- One of the assumptions I hear a lot is that the guidelines would add more burdens and things to do on the advance rights holders’ shoulders (they are just volunteers), and that they also increase more personal liability for the advance rights holders. Is that true? There has been the culture among Wikipedians that Wikipedia is not compulsory and Wikipedia is a volunteer service, but I think their main concern is that the culture might be overridden by the guidelines. I don’t see personally any article(s) that overrides such philosophy and culture; however, I might be missing something. That’s why I am asking you for clarification.
- There are only 3-4 days to go before the voting will begin. Yet, many documents related the proposed guidelines have not been translated. As of 3 March, 2022 19:49 (UTC), "2022 Conversation Hour Summaries," for example, has been partially translated into only Russian (2%) and Japanese (57%). How can users who do not understand English make a sound judgement?
- SCP-2000 has already asked this question, but can we, voters, express our opinions/comments in our native language when we vote?
- Under the Policy and precedent section, it states “The U4C does not create new policy and may not amend or change the Universal Code of Conduct.” How about the guidelines? Forgive me if I misheard our discussion from the last (Feb 25) meeting, but I thought that someone mentioned that the U4C could amend or change the guidelines. I take voting very seriously. Something that is decided by community-wide voting should be only amended and changed by another community-wide voting. In addition, amending and changing the guidelines are not listed in the U4C’s scope. Would you clarify this as well?
- An invitation on top of the meta UCoC page points to Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text, where not a single question has been officially answered yet. On 5 February 2021 User:Iniquity stated: "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", and many others agreed. I myself found some statements untranslatable or ambiguous(ly worded):
- "(This includes) imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize"
- Is this: (imposing schemes) on (content intended to marginalize or ostracize)
- Or is it: (imposing schemes on content) intended (to marginalize or ostracize)
- An example of "imposing schemes" (schemes? rules?) would definitely help. Who's marginalizing or ostracizing whom, and how?
- Current translations include: (RU) Это включает создание правил о контенте с целью маргинализации или остракизма. = This includes creating rules about content for the purpose of marginalization or stigmatization. (PL) Obejmuje to narzucanie schematów treści, które mają na celu marginalizację lub wykluczenie. = This includes imposing content schemas that aim to marginalize or exclude. (FR) Cela comprend la mise en place de règles sur les contenus destinées à marginaliser ou ostraciser. = This includes setting rules on content intended to marginalize or ostracize.
- The sentence starts with "This includes", but what does the word "this" refer to? The use of symbols includes imposing schemes on content?
- "hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content"
- Many dictionaries will tell you that to hinder, impede and hamper are (nearly) synonymous. Can this be said in a less poetic way? (FR, google translator) entraver, entraver ou autrement entraver la création; (HR) ometanje, ometanje ili na drugi način ometanje stvaranja.
- "behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship"
- It's hard for me to say where "respect" ends and "civility" begins (don't they overlap?). Collegiality - solidarity too. But what on earth is meant by "good citizenship"? I do not think many languages have a good, non-overly-descriptive term for "good citizenship". (RU) good citizenship = awareness of one's responsibility (UK) good citizenship = observance of rights and obligations (PL) good citizenship = camaraderie. Is this right?
- "unfair embarrassment" / "unfair and unjustified reputational harm" / "gratuitous legal action"
- Can embarrassing someone be fair? Can reputational harm be fair and justified? Is suggesting legal actions other than gratuitous legal actions OK?
- "discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community members"
- Can this be said in a less poetic way? Where do these discussions and expressions take place, what -in plain words- are they?
- "(This includes) imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize"
- Do we need weakening parts in the guide? (not only how to execute the punishment, but also how to protect yourself from it. If you are in a situation where they complained about you, then reading this text is quite emotionally overwhelming, everything here is only against you) E.g. there will be guides for those who make decisions and for those who send a request, but will there be a guide for the one who complained? / Decisions on punishment will be considered deattached from the goals of the communities - whether it is necessary to put the Mission(s) above and note that the possibilities of continuing to assist the Mission should be considered? / Is there a need for a formal role of a assigned public defender, with whom the one who was complained about can communicate, or a guide what opportunities for interaction and expression of own position/situation are provided for him? Sunpriat (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I know this is redundant, but I need clarification that we are going to vote on the content of the Enforcement Guidelines (EG), not on if we are going to have EG or not.
- This question came up during the last Conversation Hour, but it is not mentioned in the conversation hour summaries at all. Someone asked if we are going to vote on the current EG language as is, without any modifications. I believe this question stems from the fact that there are so many people have expressed their concerns over the current EG language.
- What if the guidelines fail to pass twice? Then what?
- According to the summaries, the word “affirmation” has been changed to "acknowledge.” Still, I don't see any EG wording changes. What have you changed? Not the EG (the one we are voting on) wording, apparently. I am very confused.
- I asked this question before; however, I don’t think I got an answer for the following question: Who are the "We" in the “Recommendations for UCoC training for community members” section? The paragraph does not seem to define the meaning of the “We.”
- Similarly, who is recommending the training to whom?
- During the last Conversation Hour, we were advised that the training is just a recommendation. I still do not get it: How can you require certain people to attend the training when it is a recommendation? This is a simple English logic question.
- Can we, my local community, decide if we need or do not need the training?
Reporting and appeal pathways
- I'm going to re-post my previous question as I think this is important. The guidelines do not seem to address retaliation by the accused when and after someone files a violation report against him/her (the accused). Ideally, the retaliation issue should be, in my opinion, included in the UCoC under the unacceptable behavior while we can reinforce our firm position against it in the EG.
- I think that providing translation resources during processing violation cases is tied to the “right-to-be-heard” and due process for non-English speaking users. Will the foundation provide translation resources during processing violation cases? I also believe that there are a lot of cases which have not been reported due to the language barrier. Both non-English speaking accusers and accused should be able to request language assistance if/when they are reporting or appealing cases to U4C. Otherwise, please do not tell me that you are creating an inclusive organization; and that you DO NOT wish to leave the underrepresented communities behind.
Hi, all, Thank you for taking the time to answer so many questions the other day.
I was a bit distracted at the beginning of the meeting (sorry) and would like to double-check the following:
I think someone (Christel?) clarified that all eligible voters would be able to express their opinions when they vote regardless of which way they would vote. Am I correct?
- RottenApple777: Correct, the comment box is available no matter the vote. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's probably answered somewhere else already, but will there be some kind of vote on ratifying the entire UCoC? And if it does, what happens if it gets rejected? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Who controls the content of the mandatory training? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I was wondering the same thing. They wrote: “The Board of Trustees announced its approval of the UCoC Policy on 2 February 2021, though neither the global community nor individual communities have approved this Code of Conduct." That implies as if they are trying to get an approval of the UCoC, not to be confused with the Enforcement Guidelines, from the global community and/or individual communities. Is that so?
- What’s going to happen when/if advanced rights holders refuse or ignore to affirm the UCoC? Are you going to strip them of their advance rights? Who is going to handle them? Local or U4C?
- Also, what's going to happen when/if advanced rights holders refuse or fail to attend the training?
- The following sentence is found under the subtitle "Recommendations for UCoC training for community members": "We recommend resources for translation be provided by the Wikimedia Foundation when reports are provided in languages that designated individuals are unfamiliar with."
- Who are the "We" in this sentence? What reports are you referring to? On training? Isn't it important to provide translation resources during processing violation cases as well? And it should state that “mandate,” not “recommend.”
- Can a non-English based local community at a request have a chance to review (not on MetaWiki) its language’s translated version of the guidelines before it is published on the foundation.wikimedia.org webpage?
- The guidelines do not seem to address retaliation by the accused when and after someone files a violation report against him/her (the accused).
- By lowering the technical barrier for reporting and processing UCoC violations, I am afraid that some LTAs might abuse the reporting system and create havoc by filing tons of bogus violation reports against sysops and editors. They have already been doing that locally.
- Thank you for the opportunity. RottenApple777 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)RottenApple777 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the WMF being involved with creating the training, but having only "guidance" from others leaves a major issue. As completing this training is apparently a required condition, it (deliberately or otherwise) devolves defining the practical common implementation. Should there not either be a community group creating the training or a direct veto on training documents? What happens if we get to training and admins and others are going "Nope, this training in this aspect is just wrong, I would not follow it"?
- I have several significant concerns that the "U4C Building Committee" that I hope you could help settle.
- It does not define its membership in terms of how many elected, appointed, and directly selected members. That is a core facet and cannot be left unstated. Can that be done now?
- Given the UCOC's primary changes most radically affect the local projects, I assume that the affiliate/"specific skills" members would be small minorities, especially the latter, but how does this handle that in committees some members become near (not totally, warranting removal) inactive? How do you plan to ensure a consistent balance?
- As with the other UCOC committees, but even more so, while I trust, and like, the VP Community Resilience and Sustainability, the issue remains that they have firm INVOLVEMENT in the process, much as I shouldn't get to choose all the members given my strong views on the UCOC. Should the community membership at least not be being decided by the community? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The statement includes the line This would allow for another round of edits to address community concerns prior to another vote, if needed, emphasis mine, in the context of the community rejecting the guidelines. Under what circumstances would a second vote not be needed to implement the adjusted guidelines?
No future roundtable is planned at this point, future calls will be announced as planned.