User talk:Soni/BoT 2024 guide

BoT Guide

Loved it! Thanks for creating the BoT 2024 guide. Helps a lot to understand the candidates and their perspective/s. Brahmavadini (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

UCoC was not ratified by the community

@Soni: two of the candidates recommended by this guide got this fact wrong in their A1 ("The community did ratify the code" and "The statement about the absence of the UCoC ratification is incorrect" and linking to the ratification of the charter - not the UCoC). How is that reflected in the recommendation? Ghilt (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, @Victoria for your information. Ghilt (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ghilt: The claim in question A1 is, "the UCoC was implemented by the Board without community ratification". The first vote had about 60% support when the bar for board approval was 50%. One of the next votes was for a revision of the text of the first vote, and that passed with about 75%, and the other vote was to establish a community committee with enforcement authority, and that passed with about 75%.

• First Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) enforcement guidelines
• Universal Code of Code Coordinating Committee Charter, or U4C Charter
• Revised Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) enforcement guidelines

Can you be more specific about the error you are seeing? Bluerasberry (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

none of the links are to a vote on the UCoC despite your claim (they are either votes on the Charter or on the Enforcement Guidelines, but not on the UCoC). You do see that the three links given have nothing to do with a ratification of the UCoC itself? Ghilt (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ghilt: I see what you mean now. I disagree, "nothing to do with a ratification of the UCoC", because the intent of all of this organizing is to show a complicated voting ritual which people should believe indicates consensus. I agree with you in the sense that yes, our election system is flawed, and I do not think think that voters knew what they were voting for. It is not a sign of healthy democracy that there were three elections and none of them had the focus that you indicate, and that community members were protesting throughout. I am with Wiki LGBT+, and while we wanted protection and had our members on the drafting committee reporting to our user group, there were still major concerns we had which were not addressed in the process or election or otherwise.

Please do not fault me for misunderstanding, because I do not think it is possible for anyone to read the election pages or related journalism and come to understanding. It is not going to be possible to establish community understanding of a system which is designed for ambiguity.

This and other election processes would be more clear if 1) we had an independent and well-resourced Wikimedia community election committee and 2) we had independent and well-resourced Wikimedia community journalism to report issues.

Here is what I can say - I have strongly advocated for WMF funding to support Wikimedia community organizers for managing elections in their own way, including support for funding and support for independent election organization. I have also made it known that I support whatever needs to happen to improve community discussions through community journalism, including funding through grants. The legitimacy of community participation in governance relies on shared recognition of facts and shared storytelling, which we do not have.

I am glad that Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees was written but it has 27 incoming links and is practically undiscussed. I do what I can at English Wikipedia's newsletter but our volunteer journalists are failing to recruit enough labor to do reporting, even of major protests and petitions like this one. I appreciate that open letter but it does not speak for itself. It needed thorough responses from organizations including the WMF board and the community election committee, and those conversations needed to be reported in journalism. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Please cite my sentence in the full meaning: "the three links given have nothing to do with a ratification of the UCoC itself". Now, since you disagree with that short and concise fact and then choose to go off-topic in the reply, i would like to come back to: in your opinion, which document contains a ratification of the UCoC? The links you provided are either votes on the Charter or on the Enforcement Guidelines, but not on the UCoC. Ghilt (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ghilt: The general situation is that the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community are proceeding with the shared understanding and belief that the UCoC is adopted. Perhaps it was not ratified, but if not, then what of it at this point? Somehow the process has reached an end and it seems that the community has not organized an objection.

If it helps, then yes, I agree that the three elections I linked have nothing to do with a ratification of the UCoC itself. What more do you want besides my belief and support? I am ready to recognize a community petition or protest. I am not ready to be the one who starts or organizes one. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the UCoC was adopted, but by a board decree (top down) and not by a community ratification. As a possible future board member, it is important to see the difference. All i wanted in this thread is for Victoria and you to acknowledge that your statement was incorrect. You have done that now, but Victoria's correction is still missing. --Ghilt (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ghilt, Victoria acknowledged several corrections I made to her answer here. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Barkeep49. Ghilt (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I see others have already commented on the matters of fact (This is exactly what I noted as but I disagree with the facts as written for Victoria's A1.

Otherwise I attempted to follow my rubric to the letter, so I did not penalise candidates being imprecise on the facts or having opinions others disagree on. Both Victoria and Bluerasberry seemed to have clear ideas about UCoC and showed them in their answers. I do not hold either against them unless it's something fundamental, (like, say, how Wikimedia projects work).

That they disagreed with my understanding of things, I only considered for my "own ballot" (aka last section). Soni (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

sorry, Soni, but wrong claims are not facts - on the contrary, they are counterfactual. It was also neither "imprecise" nor an "opinion", but simply wrong. Whether there was a vote or not, is a deterministic question (not an opinion) and the answer is simply no - and this can even be measured. Ghilt (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we'll have to keep it at that then. I have seen too much of the UCoC too closely to know how little a difference "UCoC was ratified" is from "UCoC EG was ratified" for many. The difference between due process and Wikilawyering can sometimes just be about how many others share your position.

I care about this enough to hold "UCoC should itself be ratified" but I don't intend to rake someone else through the coals for making that mistake/holding that position. Ultimately, the detail was enough to warrant clear mention in my guide, but not disqualifying (especially given the back-and-forth and replies from both candidates). If this issue is important enough for you, I encourage you to make your own guide that gives candidates' opinions on UCoC more weightage. Soni (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)