Universal Code of Conduct FacilitatorEdit

I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is the account I use for edits or statements I make in that role. However, the Foundation does not vet all my activity, so edits, statements, or other contributions made by this account may not reflect the views of the Foundation.

My current project involves facilitating discussions about the Universal Code of Conduct policy draft, especially in relation to enforcement and conflict resolution. You can share feedback with me here on my talk page, via email, or at a community venue by adding a notification. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2021‎

translation of Universal_Code_of_ConductEdit

could you have a look at what Iniquity is doing to translations of the Universal Code of Conduct? [1] and [2] for example. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's nothing to be concerned about, it seems. I saw some diffs that looked like text was removed, but it's all still there. Vexations (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, Vexations. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Vexations: We have some material available for translation, if you know anyone who is interested (Perhaps Iniquity?) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Also noticed JustB EU helped translate some nl material. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF), I'm not sure that I want to participate in this, as the group responsible for the code of conduct completely ignores the discussion. Thanks. Iniquity (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Iniquity. I want to understand correctly: when you say the "completely ignores the discussion", are you referring to the still-open questions or comments made about the Policy text? I'm following along closely, collecting and organizing the inputs provided there so that they can be considered in the development process. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! I'm glad that at least someone from the team reads the comments there. It's just that for three months there was no comment from the team.
> that they can be considered in the development process.
Is it possible to find out which process you are talking about? Will the policy text be changed to be translated? Because at the moment it is impossible to translate it. Iniquity (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Iniquity: The UCoC project team does follow along the discussions closely, and comments & suggestions on the Policy text page do inform our efforts. We appreciate all the work everyone has done to this point going over the latest version and determining which parts will be difficult to apply in other contexts. I will work on a longer post describing the development process for the Meta talk pages.
The current phase is about writing the application and enforcement sections while exploring the practicality, enforceability, translatability, and applicability of the policy text. These concerns could be highlighted in the section under "Managing Reports" / "Are there human, technical, training, or knowledge-based resources the Foundation could provide to assist volunteers in this area?" (@ru; @nl not yet started) that a given community is having trouble interpreting and adapting the Policy text to their project/language (perhaps linking to the Meta /Policy text talk page sections, or providing a comprehensive summary of the noted concerns).
Does that help? Also: could you confirm if you are talking about the Russian translation, the Dutch translation, both, or other? Any others that you are aware have particular concerns? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF): Thanks for the detailed answer. This has been sorely lacking in the past three months. Prior to this message, there was no information that there is an opportunity to change the text of the policy in the near future. Please tell us how the change will be carried out? And will it be carried out?
Considering that in your survey you talk about law enforcement, everyone is almost sure that the text of the policy is complete and cannot be appealed, and this is unacceptable since the text is terrible for a multilingual project.
> Also: could you confirm if you are talking about the Russian translation, the Dutch translation, both, or other?
All languages except English. Iniquity (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Iniquity: The Universal Code of Conduct is meant to remain subject to appropriate context. Could you look at Universal Code of Conduct/FAQ#Periodic reviews and Universal Code of Conduct/FAQ#Conflict with local policies (esp q12 & q16), and Talk:Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees#Comments from the UCoC Project team, and let me know if you have further questions? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF): Did I understand correctly from your message that the text can only be changed after a year? December 2021?
> (esp q12 & q16)
These questions not solve the problem. The text does not conflict, it is simply untranslatable. Iniquity (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF), hi, can you answer? :) Iniquity (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Iniquity: I noticed questions about the use of the word "expectations" as well as several other questions you asked related to terminology. I can try to get the answers to those questions, would that help move translation efforts forward? Information about the policy text change process is at the top of the Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF)
> I noticed questions about the use of the word "expectations" as well as several other questions you asked related to terminology. I can try to get the answers to those questions, would that help move translation efforts forward?
"expectations" and "anglocentric text", yes. Get answers in three months, yes, that would be good. But this needs to be corrected in the text, since you will not be looking for hired translators for all 300 languages, will you? And in small languages, when policy begins, how will people understand what they have violated? Now there is absolutely no point in translating, because any translation of your text will be a hoax, since no one understands what it is about included the team.
> Information about the policy text change process is at the top of the Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text page.
You mean "The UCoC will be refined during Phase 2 and reviewed again after the conclusion of that phase"? Iniquity (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've asked at nl wikipedia if people would like to have UCoC related material in Dutch. I got one reply saying that it is probably not necessary at all. English proficiency in the Netherlands is near universal. I think we can safely assume that everyone who is interested in the UCoC can contribute in English. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Vexations: Thank you for your help on the translation and engagement with the community. I'm sure the translation will continue to prove useful, even if some also view the English version text. Since there is no barrier for the community conversation on NlWiki, the next step would be initiating a discussion on these discussion topics (@en, @nl). Each community might answer differently, which is why we have done it in this way ("hub-and-spoke"), even if local participants are fully conversant in English. We are committed to having input communicated in whichever language the local community feels most appropriate, so if NlWiki decides that using English is ideal, I have no concerns following the 2021 April-May NlWiki discussion in English. Please add to table and wikidata item.
I am also looking for assistance summarizing the earlier 2021 discussion, especially any items that provide input into the current structure (we would like to include diffs to the previous comments within the relevant 19 topics). Xeno (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to translators!Edit

Dedicated to all the hardworking Meta translators helping achieve global collaboration. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

[[File:Translation_Barnstar.svg|thumb|right|Dedicated to all the hardworking Meta translators helping achieve global collaboration. [[User:Xeno (WMF)|Xeno (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Xeno (WMF)#top|talk]]) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)]]

Current translation needs
  1. Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Announcement Delivered 2020-04-05, feel free to translate and re-deliver as thought necessary
  2. Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion: these are the discussion topics for local communities to consider and provide input on
  3. Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations: this describes the global consultations process
I noticed some contributors already started translating it without asking! So thankful for all the collaboration here. BChoo (WMF) is helping coordinate this effort. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I just want to thank all the translators that are working so hard on making the consultation materials available in so many languages: I'm truly humbled, and in awe at the collaborative process at work. I know BChoo (WMF) said the same in our meeting today: we really appreciate you all. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Who's responsible at WMF for the legal proces?Edit

Thanks Xeno for facilitating the discussion. You write not being involved for anything related to the content. Could you please give information who / what department within the WMf is, or maybe an advising agency? What will be done with the comments, what is the status of the talkpage for further designing of the Code? Thanks, WillTim 2001:16B8:11E3:A801:59C3:BCE:6126:3E21 08:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello WillTim: please Wikimedia Foundation Legal department for details about the department structure. Community input on the practicality, enforceability, translatability, and applicability of the policy text is being invited as we move forward and will inform the UCoC project team reports, the Phase 2 drafting committee, as well as reviews of the text by the Legal department. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation in frenchEdit

Hello Xeno. Thank you for your work on the UCoC and its application. I am Triboulet sur une montagne, a member of WP:fr (and of the corresponding Arbcom). I am new on meta (so I have small technical difficulties with special operations) but I can help to translate documents in french (you posted a message for that purpose in WP:fr today). Feel free to contact me. Cheers Triboulet sur une montagne (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Triboulet sur une montagne: Thank you for the message and the offer of translation help! Since we have been able to obtain the French translations, right now the next step would be to double-check them and start a discussion at wp:fr using this page: Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Discussion/fr. We are hoping a trusted local user or user(s) would volunteer to summarize the discussion by 10 May so we can help inform the drafting committee. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Triboulet sur une montagne Use this link : https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Discussion/fr&action=edit to get a clean Fr text. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Ok thanks, I will have a look on that tomorrow (sleep time in Europe).
I think our project will discuss this point (trusted local user(s)) next days. One of our sysop have already created a local consultation on the UCoC last month. There were lots of discussions and we have materials to communicate. Before clarification about our trusted local user(s), feel free to contact w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:JohnNewton8 (the sysop), w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Racconish (a previous member of the Arbcom and interested by the UCoC) or the Arbcom (w:fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Coordination). Cheers Triboulet sur une montagne (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
That sounds good.
Yes, I followed along that discussion with great interest and would be happy to hear about the key insights from the community effort. I thought it was quite clever, the mapping of the the global policy to existing local ones.
Once the discussion on fr. has a location, please add it to the table and wikidata:Q106318421. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Other valuesEdit

Hi Xeno. While conduct is important, are there other values to commit to, such as transparency, freedom of knowledge, minimizing bias including minimizing effect of bias of sources, support of sister wikis, etc? What code are they a part of? --Gryllida 01:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Gryllida: I look to our Founding principles, keeping in mind that the UCoC would be subsidiary to the Terms of Use, where core movement values are highlighted. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


On Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion page, it will be difficult to answer Global Questions#2 question, because it is not clear what it says. Local communities, especially outside the English language, are not aware of global projects. Can you tell us a little more, or can you rephrase it more simply? Global Questions-2: "identified"? What "projects" are mentioned here? What "review" did they do? "these" situations? Sunpriat (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sunpriat: Thank you for your question. I understand some contributors do not follow the happenings on other language projects. That's okay, since the question is not asked about any specific projects, more in a general nature: if, for example, there was a Wikipedia project struggling to meet the encyclopedic goal of a neutral-point-of-view, or any project where serious conduct concerns were not being addressed (or were caused), by the users administrating those projects. These could be projects struggling to uphold the Founding principles or Terms of Use. The question is: what is a safe and fair way for these types of situations to be reviewed? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sunpriat Thank you again for starting w:ru:Википедия:Опросы/Консультация по правоприменению Универсального кодекса поведения (2021). Are you able to help provide a summary of the community comments so far? Also, further to your question above, I thought you might find this essay interesting. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'll try. Where will I need to post this summary? Few people wrote there - one or two. It is a little unclear how to summarize if there is only one comment from one person under a separate question - to translate his entire comment?
    As I said, many are not interested in (not aware of current events) external (global) projects. For example, the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have a local presence on the wiki in the form of links that everyone always sees at the bottom. And this Code is perceived as something external, from another wiki, since links and presence are not visible locally in the wiki. This is probably why many do not feel such a connection of this code to them or to their Wiki, and hence it is not easy for them to answer these questions concerning external things. Sunpriat (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Sunpriat: Basically, I would like you to help me understand the ideas or thoughts that were put forth; brief point form is fine, also add any context that is required for someone not familiar with Russian Wikipedia to understand; see related discussion for German comments. I placed a section here for your analysis: Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion#Russian Wikipedia. Your last point is very useful feedback, thank you for this. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Sunpriat: I saw your posting - this is excellent and we really appreciate the hard work you did here. I know it is difficult to summarize; I imagine even more so, to translate at the same time. I will ensure this useful feedback makes it to the drafting committee. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, squeezing out the essence of ideas turned out to be more time consuming than I thought at first. Sunpriat (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I found the same, it takes longer and more energy than expected. Thank you again for organizing the local discussion, which is summarized at Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion/Report#Russian Wikipedia. We tried to give a good representation of community thoughts and ideas, feel free to let me know if there is anything that needs to be fixed. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


Hello from the Estonian Wikipedia. Thank you for this message on April 5th. However, you would get more input to your request if you could repost your message in English. --Vihelik (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Vihelik, thank you for the note about a more appropriate fallback language for Estonian Wikipedia. I am happy to repost in English but first wanted to see if you had time to translate into Estonian? (Unless I am to understand the majority also speak English?) We are also looking for a trusted local user to organize and summarize the discussions on Et.Wp, I’d you are interested or know someone who would be. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to translate working documents or any other projects in progress if the working language is English. Most everyone on the Estonian Wikipedia is proficient enough in English to participate. (I can think of only one Estonian Wikipedian with a similar skill set in Russian.) I can do the translation once the final version has been approved. --Vihelik (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Vihelik: Thank you for the community engagement help! I've re-written the message and look forward to reading insights from the Estonian Wikipedia community. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Vihelik, if Russian is not the correct fallback language for the Estonian Wikipedia, then the default can be changed on the servers. It usually helps to have a discussion (at a village pump?) first. If editors decide that, both for themselves and also for Estonian readers, it would be better to use English instead of Russian, then we can make a request at phab: and get it changed. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
es has no fallback language at all in MessagesEs.php, the line in the graph picture was incorrect. I have clarified the lines in the picture. Sunpriat (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I may have introduced confusion in this conversation using the term "fallback". Seems Et.Wiki was delivered a Russian language message because of our Mass Message sorting, not a setting. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like a misunderstanding then, thank you for sorting it out. We had a quick vote at the Estonian village pump, all the participants unanimously wish to keep English as the fallback language for untranslated messages (if there indeed is one). --Vihelik (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Buttons useEdit

Please avoid of massively using template:clickable button 2 especially inserting an image into NOT appropriate field for that like you done @ Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations (and it's subpages), as you did with, for example:

1=[[File:Community Noun project 2280 white.svg|40px|link=]]<translate><!--T:22--> View or translate discussion text</translate>

as it breaks using page internal links (on both external/internal link-type use inside above mentioned template) as it done, for example, here.

And please bear in mind it's better not to use template:clickable button 2 at all if you want to use images there, as it's not intended to use it (images) locally by default. Other way don't think someone (translators also) will search bugs resolution you set there with image included at button text field when'll see "page not working good".

Why not to just use text formating instead? Bold, italic, colored, CSSed, etc.? 22:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could you help me understand what the technical issue is? The buttons are meant to assist in engagement. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I don't mind about using buttons itself (if they'r not buggy), but it's obviously not good to use it with images "inserted" in the template:clickable button 2 text (2nd) field because it's not working right way.
Initial case is it(inserting image link to the text field)'s interfere (at least local ones as "#Participate" - used to navigate an editor exactly to same page section without page reloading as it done at your initial button version) links from being right way to be showed. AS I already mentioned, you can see here the next:
from the left of the button and link absense at [first] button itself. That happens because of exactly image inserted @ the template:clickable button 2 text field.
Other case connected to buttons use (I didn't check is it connected to image inserted to the text field or button template itself) is some way translation problem exists while using such button template, you can see here, as there's:
placed to the right of the [first] button just because I used "[можна]" clarification, I did often before while translation process using translation extension but till now didn't meet any problems, inside the button template, which "understood" it as the end of text field and "throw away" the rest of the text from the button itself. For example I do not want to translate anymore the text when I already aware of it being showed not right way because of using that buttons and/or image inside a button template text field. Think noone will be happy to translate the text if page is such way buggy. But, sure, you can do way you want and ignore my advice. 00:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi I'm not ignoring the advice, trying to understand - though if possible, I'd like to avoid the pages having to go through re-translation if not needed and asked BChoo (WMF) to look at your comments. Pols12 may also have input, they have a good handle on what we are trying to accomplish with these pages (i.e. an easy way for local users to copy a localized version of the discussion topics to initiate a discussion at their local project). Maybe Trizek (WMF) can help us figure out how to make those click templates could function better without having to use an external link. I tried to copy the style at mw:Special:Diff/3237742 here without success. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
What you showed (a diff) is different template (with different field options with on my POV main difference is that field #3 have to become empty (...||...) if you use internal link and any other option - even setting another parameter but exactly on 3rd field - if external... such thing confuses but it is) of used by you. That is template:clickable button (that works little better as I saw but still didn't find it to be possible to use images, only default-listed icons).

icon solutionEdit

Tracked in Phabricator:
task T280733
I can help you to "port" template:clickable button 2 to template:clickable button on the page, but still not sure about using images... Try to choose icons instead please and I will do the rest.
If someone will fix such (above mentioned) issues with template:clickable button 2 I'll be glad to continue both translation and using buttons itself ) 01:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure we could try it
Add and see: ui-icon-arrowthickstop-1-s
View or translate: ui-icon-transfer-e-w
Copy discussion text: ui-icon-copy
Add local discussion: ui-icon-signal
(Open to suggestions) ^.^ Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Missed that message yesterday, however think that have no value today and will have one only later if images issue won't be resolved. However a good choice of icons ) At least it's much more different then "group of three people" image on every single button used. Really would be good to be implemented! 19:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think this could be a better way. I agree the "same image" isn't quite useful, and maybe it's better not to load images anyway if the icons will have a clean uniform look. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to sandbox this yet, 85.238.x.x. did you still want to take a run at this? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I can try. Do you want me to change it to icons you choose? 22:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if it solves the [ bracket ] issue , absolutely. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It solves it partly, as you can read below external link breaks it (using []) too. But I can try and tell you later is it works with another template. 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
As I told - button templates are too weird templates: while previewing an edits (special:diff/21366800, special:diff/21366801 -> press "Edit" link @Upright -> press "Show preview" button @Bottom) it looks pretty (blue-colored formatting with button icons are present), but it (button's both icons and blue colored formatting) "dissappears" after saving (Special:Redirect/revision/21366800, Special:Redirect/revision/21366801).
I give up on fighting with it (button bugs as it already out of only square brackets use issue) and will mostly ignore translations connected to button texts and button-templates use itself as it (button templates) have to be completely rewriten to be not so obviously buggy. I prefer to just wait for resolution to be provided by someone @ where user:Pols12 posted it below.
As of square brackets to use in template text field (button text)- it still not working when external link used as a target. AS it looks like nor in "clickable button" nor in "clickable button 2" template85.238.102.83 15:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is basic wikitext: you can’t use two right single quotes because this produces an italic text; you must escape it with nowiki. The same issue happens with brackets: you can’t use a closing bracket in an external link label because it closes the link; you must escape it with nowiki.
For {{clickable button}} icons, they use jQuery-UI which is deprecated for years! So we will not receive any support for this strange bug, unfortunately. I am reverting your change which fully breaks the buttons. Maybe we can implement some icons in {{clickable button 2}}, but this is not my priority for now. -- Pols12 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for trying to work around the markup issue. Since these buttons are only needed for another few weeks, maybe it is better to work on a more robust template for the next time. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Despite it'll be no more needed for your nowadays task it still will be here and problem will still persist later, so it's good to be solved while "someone interested" (that time it's you and your text) and that way it can be tested in "working" (including a text translation process and possible corresponding bugs appearance) for some future tasks which (I hope) won't meet such buggy templates interference anymore. Yes it good to choose another ('more robust') template, but as it looks like - there's no any alternative template exists except that (CB2) [still] buggy one for today. Won't you mind we'll put things in order using as exactly your text as bug research subject? :) 21:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Pols12, how had I guess it (about it's deprecated)? ;) Thank you for clarification (Pols12, it looks like clarification [most understood in comment but not so good in edit content itself: "Should"+"obsolete" without answer to "Why it obsolete and shouldn't be used?"] is our everything. And everywhere). However it still unknown why {{clickable button}} jQuery-UI still works while page preview. Is it (jQuery-UI) still valid there (@page preview UI) despite it deprecated at wiki main page view UI???
As of {{clickable button 2}} it looks like it've been using a jQuery-UI too and that's why can be some way affected. Anyway it's documentation looks extremely different from same on commons and have no "icon" template field description despite it's unknown does local CB2 template code have such icon field to process and operate with or no [what does {{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}} means? where it links to? Where can I see a template code it wirking with?]. That's why I still think it to be the best to import same template from Commons [to be possible to use also the icons] as I told below [green checkmarked]. Or icons won't work even in {{clickable button 2}} and Commons similar template is not valid to be used on Meta?
Yep, that's ok you reverted it, I just wanted to show it doesn't work as it've seen in preview. 21:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally, I have open a task anyway, because this bug breaks several pages. --Pols12 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition - I've seen just right now - after writing whole my answer text - your description of template bug in newly formed phab request where you telling about Jquery UI turned on while page preview but turned off after saving, so my above question about [...view UI???] is obsolete now. 21:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

square bracket useEdit

I see you are saying that because you used a clarifying remark with a square bracket, and we are using an image inside a template, the clarifying remark is not compatible.
Is it possible to use round bracket instead of square bracket, so that your translation will work for now while we investigate other solution? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure it's possible (or not to use it at all as I already done there, but that distorts the original (untranslated) text meaning while both not using brackets at all or using round brackets on clarification because of round brackets is wide-used in original texts and usually reader won't be able differ the translate clarification from translated original text, that is obviously bad. 01:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
For now I removed the images, does that allow your desired translation? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Will try now85.238.102.83 01:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Internal link changed ok (if you still do not understand why I did it ask me) but square quotes still not usable inside a button template... Will try to find out what is wrong. Don't you mind if I will change template:clickable button 2 to template:clickable button at original text if it will help? 01:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Try it! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear IP, please be careful before accusating.
  • Images have nothing to do with the issue you encounter. It is basic wikitext: [#anchor text] syntax don’t work, we must indeed use internal link syntax.
  • Also, [http://link|text [with] brackets] will cause issues for sure: you should use <nowiki> tag to escape them. I mean [http://link|text <nowiki>[with]</nowiki> brackets].
Pols12 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Pols12. I wasn't accused anyone (meaning - the user), I just showed two examples when it (button templates)'s not working indeed with simple translations. I personally won't add that weird "nowiki" tags each time I need to use square brackets for clarification because that's too weird way even if it "resolves" button issue. And that's the case - to make page comfortable for translator and not a translator to do weird things to "make comfortable" a template:clickable button 2 to work. But maybe you will find who will be glad to be a "template servant" instead of you (or someone who wrote a template) to fix template not mix square brackets of different type of template fields). Template have to serve users and not vice-versa. Both images and "url" template field use (meaning external link use) are exactly the issues pointed above reasons. 03:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Xeno (WMF), Before Pols12 made changes back I found an issue that breaks both in-page internal link use and square brackets "text field" use. In short, to make translation of buttons comfortable (including using square brackets) you have to:
  • not to use images at template text fileds;
  • not to use "url=" field name and therefore - not to use external links in buttons, - using internal links only instead as first template parameter, for example what was looked like here as:
{{Clickable button 2|1=<translate> <!--T:29--> View or translate discussion text</translate>|class=mw-ui-progressive|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Discussion}}
and look like now here:
{{Clickable button 2|1=[[File:Community Noun project 2280 white.svg|40px|link=]]<translate> <!--T:29--> View or translate discussion text</translate>|class=mw-ui-progressive|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Discussion}}
have to look like:
{{Clickable button 2|Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Discussion|<translate> <!--T:29--> View or translate discussion text</translate>|class=mw-ui-progressive}}
to use square brackets int the button text field without any doubts and issues.
Now choice is yours - to simplify buttons to not using both images and external links (but still using WMF-projects internal ones) or to search for translators who will agree to be a buttons buggy template servant - "playing" with "nowiki" tags to "fullfill the needs" (as "nowiki" use is no way template requirement according to it's documentation) of the template85.238.102.83 03:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Xeno (WMF), what is the purpose of last 2 buttons? Why do you need to link exactly to "edit" and "edit section 4" pages there. Case is that's interfere to change them to internal ones. 03:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
One is to make it easy for someone to copy the source text without the translation markup (e.g. if one wants copy the Ukrainian questions to initiate a discussion, click that middle button), the other is to make it easy to edit the section to add the discussion. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay so now after a sleep, I think I have a good handle on the issue: I did not expect square brackets to get used in the translations, and some of the wiki-code gets broken with square bracket use. The work around is using "nowiki" tags, however this is considered a painful exercise. We could avoid the issue by not using images or external links, or perhaps we could work around with a better purpose-built template (maybe one using icons). Is that about right? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  1. AS I told above, you can do as you wish, but, sorry, I personally will not translate the text where's neutral point of view is ignored.
  2. AS you correctly noticed using "nowiki" is just a "work around", I personally will not use wasting time on to only avoid template bugs, and not the problem solution. But if you'r sure there's many translators who will - continue that way.
  3. AS of are you right about avoiding a problem using icons/internal links instead of images/external links inside a above mentioned current edition button template ( ) or to fix current/write a new template ( ) - YES YOU ARE, but maybe that would be even much better to just import here from commons a code of similar template where image can be added by setting exactly in a separate field, and that way not affecting a template text field by "image file"'s square brackets, that is not available at the current revision of same named local template( )?
Anyway wish your text to be translated to all wordwide languages ))) Have a good day! 13:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me understand what you meant by neutral-point-of-view being ignored? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Telling it I meant you revert all my changes to the text that some way violates neutral point of view policy as that's not a place for "one/only author/contributor"'s pages, especially at main space. But you already explained yor POV so that's ok now. At least till next misunderstanding [clash?]. 19:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think just a misunderstanding; your changes were good suggestions, as these are broad questions that do sometimes call for clarification. Meanwhile, for timing consideration we had to eventually settle on the phrasing and launch the questions as they stood (we had certain translators standing by, etc.). I am happy to assist in clarifying the questions further as needed, if some meaning is lost in translating as has been seen above, where Sunpriat asked me some question, and then brought back my answer (in Russian) for clarity. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I did the same now clarifying (exactly using a square brackets for that) what we told about:
  • here: "...більш [складними, а які, навпаки,] менш складними..." meaning "...more [challenging and what, vice-versa,] less challenging...";
  • and here: "...серйозного [на думку спільноти] переслідування..." meaning "...serious [on community's opinion] harassment...".
Did I understand right your above mentioned phrases clarifications? 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that works - thank you! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

← For now I tried the 'nowiki' solution since it seems the simplest solve for the instant (fixes the Ukrainian main consult page immediately). Let me meet with my team to see if there is a more robust way forward that won't require this undocumented use.

UkWiki community engagementEdit

85.238.x.x I do really appreciate your translation help. As far as changes to the English source text, I understand your motivation while I don't want to add additional burden onto translators for copy edits, we've already asked a lot of all the wonderful translators. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You'r welcome. That's your choice ) My point is better to have text that is not needed to be ASKED to be translated but is pleasant to translate by anyone. But that's only my own POV. Good day. Again ) 13:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Considering 'ways to solve' I think I mentioned above enough about what you have to do best to resolve the issue completely85.238.102.83 13:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and suggestions, just to clarify I have only implemented a temporary fix this morning while I wait for my colleague to implement a more robust solution per your suggestions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification ) I'll check it (if will any) later. Anyway I almost translated the whole text of that page and completed translation of it's subpage and will not mind if anyone will join and finish it ) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Incredible, I can't say enough: #Thank you to translators! Are you aware if there will be a discussion launched on UkWiki with these topics? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I already placed a link to ukwiki local UCoC discussion before but later deleted it because of obvious things.
I think it [local discussion] won't [start], because two months ago when local community was noticed about UCoC and clarification was made about it can be discussed exactly here locally clarification was momentarily deleted (possibly because most of local community think anonymous contributors are not worth to contribute or to have/post own opinion) and in a month the topic was sent to archive still uncommented by anyone. Later (a week ago) it looks like you started a new UCoC-related topic, but still - there's a silence. My POV they'r not interested in implementing an UCoC as (from my own long-term experience) they do not want to strictly follow the policies and therefore to have someone who can punish them for that from outside of local project where they are "on the throne" and therefore, in fact, because of that being untouched even if they violate a basics of WMF-policies - position - they like very much and don't want to lose if (or when?) UCoC will be implemented globally. I bet (my own POV) there will be no any local discussion or that will be formal (to show you the fact it was) by a narrow circle of people, mostly an WMUA-members, but not wide discussed exactly publicly - by anyone and not only by local WMF-affiliate members or only registered members (not even talking about unregistered contributors as there[at ukwiki]'s, in fact, "no rights" for such group of contributors, nor [frequently] for edits, nor [almost always] for opinion posted to any discussion), as if they [local community] would want to discuss publicly the UCoC that'd already had place there a couple of months till today. But it's not. 15:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the background, I wish there was more engagement. Now that the Discussion topics are translated, maybe there will be more input? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I doubt on it as about two months ago when local community was noticed about UCoC and appropriate (exactly it's about subjected) local-languaged discussion possibility UCoC overview, UCoC discussion and UCoC text was already fully translated mostly by me and nothing happens. But... Let's wait and see what (and if) happens there towards it in near future85.238.102.83 19:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
For information, I have open a task to request support for image in wikilinks. -- Pols12 (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, will wait for result ) 15:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

question phrasingEdit

Xeno (WMF), AS of your that revert - it was not good, as my previous page changes did not contain any "code" changes but only clarification/fix of ambigious explanations. You've better careully reviewed what you reverted and return changes back as they are crucial for right questions meaning understanding. That's a quite normal practice on meta to make page text clarifications time to time,- you can assure it in by looking history of Universal Code of Conduct page. Because what I see now on both created by you pages I translated you are clearly ignoring what is called neutral point of view reverting ALL made changes. That is not good. Especially for you as WMF...Employee? 15:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

85.238.x.x just to clarify the purpose of these pages: I have been asked to source seek answers to these key questions (asked in this way) from the communities. Some of these discussions, are already ongoing, e.g., at RuWikinews, EnWiki, RuWiki, ZhWiki, etc.
It is preferable that the questions be asked in the same way. Does that explain why I undid those changes? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. When discussing something that's a very important to NOT have disambiguation in terms or, that case, questions. For example, can you answer a questions I asked here or here in edit comments? I don't think one(s) who was asking you to "source" (ehm... as not native english-speaking person I have to ask - what does that word here means as I don't see a meaningful logic with next word here?) answers to key questions meant to ask comminuties about:
  • how to make appointment appropriate reports harder ("What types of changes would make it more ... challenging [don't think ones who asked that means exactly how it understood - how to make reporting HARDER] for users to submit appropriate reports?");
  • or wished to ignore towards ordinary (that can be designated by different communities on different levels, that is ambiguation itself) harassment communities opinion (What is the best way to ensure safe and proper handling of incidents (I) involving vulnerable people; including (II) serious harassment [how is exactly 'serious' one have to be defined unified by different communities?]; or (III) threats of violence cases?)
and you can ask them back about "what did they mean writing it in questions" and clarify it later in original text by your own. Such your some questions clarification action will NOT HARM discussions BUT will HELP to receive from different communities unambiguous and clear answers for exactly unambiguous and clear questions (which are not like that right now). But, for sure, that's only my POV. I think it's right. You can think it's not (that way you can not to answer). $) 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It's actually phrased that way on a community suggestion (changes based on feedback). When someone suggested me to ask "how to make it harder to submit reports", I questioned it at first as well. Their reasoning was sound: users might not be able to tell me what will make it easier for them to submit reports. But there's a good chance they can say what would make it harder for them. That feedback ('if you do this, less useful reports will be submitted') can be a helpful guide on what not to do. Does that make sense? I did try to explain that in the edit summary.
Ordinary harassment is not ignored: it's addressed in other topics, that particular question is meant to speak about those specific subsets. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Consider: Some projects might have mature structures, where even serious harassment is traditionally dealt with by local processes. Meanwhile, smaller projects may have limited administrator coverage, perhaps enough to handle most harassment issues where anything the community considers serious, a desire could be expressed for additional support. The definition being left to the community can be seen as feature, not bug. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I see now from your description that both questions expecting as an answer for a local communities' value judgments, and from that side I agreed it's formulated right. However, to estimate something's value there have still to be (exist) examples to estimate it's:
  • more report-challening change;
  • less report-challening change;
  • is it 'serious' harrasment or not,
anyway, on my POV, you should to change (if only talking about that 2 phrases) it like at least:
  • separating "more" and "change" words (as it's not clearly understood now and "neutralizes" each other and reader understand just "What types of changes would make it challenging...") to soething like "Which types of changes would make it more challenging, AND which ones [will do it] - less challenging, for users to submit appropriate reports?";
  • clarifying (maybe with additional sentence) what's exactly meant under the term 'serious harrasment' (at least couple of key examples to unify) will exclude ambiguation and, as a result, exclude different appraisal of same cases and vice-versa - same appraisal of different cases (which can be expressed, as I told above, as what one local community can consider a serious harassment and another one - not, but just a joke - you won't receive different local communities assessments' of identical issues to compare and/or summarize it, but instead you will receive some chaotic POVs about some any way not defined issues communities will come up with themselves that they personally considered a 'serious harassment' you are not defined key examples of such ones for them initially),
to be clearly understood by a translator, who will transfer exactly her/his own your original text phrases understanding in further text translation that will be read mostly by exactly whole only-languaged community before and while discussion, you want to receive answers from.
And - thank you for you clarification. I agree it[phrases]'s [formulated] right, but I would clarify it a little bit more in a text itself. But won't do it, leaving the opportunity for you to think about it and do if you will consider it necessary85.238.102.83 19:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

duration of the surveyEdit

moin xeno, the Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations take place until may 31, right? regards --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 08:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Christoph Jackel (WMDE) technically, the consultations were meant to run until 5 May, however if there is still ongoing discussions beyond that date, the input provided will still be taken in by the team and used by the drafting committee. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It's only because I just announced this on deWP and was not able to find an exact date. Does it make sense to reduce the announcement to May 15 or keep it as is? May 5 is a bit short. Cheers --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 10:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Christoph Jackel (WMDE): It should be fine for input to continue to arrive into late May, there are no hard cutoffs or deadlines for answering these questions and we can still forward useful suggestions throughout the drafting committee's tenure. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
   Great, thanks --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 10:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mark for translationEdit

Hello Xeno. Can you by any chance help me mark this page for translation ? Les sans pagEs/Report 2020 ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Anthere: I marked it for translation however there is probably still some splitting of translation units that needs to be done to make it easier to translate. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok Xeno. I will have a look and will be back to you if needed. Thanks Anthere (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Xeno. There were some significant changes made to the page, that do not appear active in the translation system. Can it be updated please ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you’re all set! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Systemic / unconscious bias a topic for UCOC?Edit

Do you feel this falls within the domain of the UCOC? The harassment which could result from second-order effects of an article with subtle NPOV flaws could be significant, even though they may not be as easily observed (especially regarding identity issues like race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc). I left a comment in the neutrality feedback (which I just noticed you "thanked" already). Hoping to join the other roundtable tomorrow. Thanks again for your UCOC efforts. Zukisama (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zukisama: there was some material on implicit bias and intersectionality included in a recent training workshop for admins and I know it was on the agenda for the drafting committee. There are some provisions at Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text#3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects that might apply and certainly we can discuss further in the round-table. French Wikipedia discussion summary (among others) actually raises this as a point of concern, expressing that such delicate content decisions should remain subject only to local content policy. Could be a good point for debate! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response as always Xeno (WMF) Great to hear about the training and discussions in progress. I'm familiar with 3.3 of the code but had not seen much discussion about NPOV relating to topics which are prone to harassment. Good to hear it's on the table! Zukisama (talk)
I made it through a good part of the SuSa training content. This is a great resource. Thanks again for sharing this. If there is still time to contribute input, I would be happy to share some additional ideas on the the "education as enforcement" concept that came up towards the end of last week's round table. Would the UCOC discussion wiki still be the best place? Zukisama (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to share additional thoughts to that page. Glad the resources are useful! Kbrown (WMF) will be happy to hear. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Great! Ideas added here. They are somewhat lengthy. Happy to edit / post elsewhere if these should live somewhere else. Zukisama (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1Edit

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

Movement Strategy and Governance FacilitatorEdit

I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is the account I use for edits or statements I make in that role. However, the Foundation does not vet all my activity, so edits, statements, or other contributions made by this account may not reflect the views of the Foundation.

My current major projects involve facilitating discussions about the Universal Code of Conduct and the Movement Charter. You can share feedback with me here on my talk page, via email, or at a community venue by adding a notification. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2Edit

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

  • Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
  • Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
  • Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
  • New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
  • Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Movement Charter translation needsEdit

I'm collecting some pages related to the Movement Charter that would really benefit from wide translation:

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I really appreciate all the translator assistance that my teams has been receiving! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct - Enforcement draft guidelines reviewEdit

The Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee would like comments about the enforcement draft guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This review period is planned for 17 August 2021 through 17 October 2021.

These guidelines are not final but you can help move the progress forward. The committee will revise the guidelines based upon community input.

Comments can be shared in any language on the draft review talk page and multiple other venues. Community members are encouraged to organize conversations in their communities.

There are planned live discussions about the UCoC enforcement draft guidelines:

Wikimania 2021 session (recorded 16 August)
Conversation hours - 24 August, 31 August, 7 September @ 03:00 UTC & 14:00 UTC
Roundtable calls - 18 September @ 03:00 UTC & 15:00 UTC

Summaries of discussions will be posted every two weeks here.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Xeno (WMF) 22:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Xeno,

Can you explain the second "enforcement" in the sentence "Code Enforcement is the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations of the Universal Code of Conduct." To me, "enforcement of violations" sounds like the opposite of what we aim to achieve. Maybe this is just a simple error, so it seemed wise to consult the original editor first. --MarcoSwart (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

MarcoSwart: Thanks for reviewing. I didn’t actually write this text, it is the product of a committee. I noticed some others queried this as well, at Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_draft_guidelines_review#enforcement_of_violations; input will be provided to the drafting committee. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Xeno, I have corrected the francophone version Code de Conduite Universel/Revue des directives de mise en application as it was entirely written in the masculine form, which constitutes a misgenderiong of all the francophones wikimedians not identifying as masculine. Kind regards,Nattes à chat (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Roundtable discussions, Sept 18thEdit

Hello Xeno (WMF) Looked for the link in the wrong place... Recording or recap of the session available? Thanks, --Msbbb (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The summary is not available yet; watch m:Special: MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Roundtable discussions/Summaries for an update soon. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 4Edit

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 4, October 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fourth issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

  • Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review Wrap-up - The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review will come to a close on 17 October 2021, after more than two months of extensive consultations. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable Discussions and Conversation Hours - Another successful roundtable session happened on September 18, 2021 to discuss the EDGR. One last conversation hour will be happening on October 15th, 2021. (continue reading)
  • Movement Charter Drafting Committee Elections - The Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection process has kicked off and will be open until October 25, 2021. Contributors to Wikimedia projects can elect their favorite candidates on to the committee. (continue reading)
  • New Direction for the Newsletter - As we round-up the consultation processes for the Universal Code of Conduct, the facilitation team is currently envisioning new directions for the newsletter. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Lint error in election messageEdit

Hi Xeno, The message "Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open" as posted on Dutch Wiktionary contained two Lint errors. They have been corrected, but my guess is we won't be the sole recipient of the message, so I thought it appropriate to inform you. Keep up the good work! --MarcoSwart (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  • PS The posting above contained a similar error, resulting in unexpected formatting of my posting, so I took the freedom to correct it too. --MarcoSwart (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
MarcoSwart: Ah, it looks like I forgot to mark for translation after I added the closing div. Thanks for the note.

Do I understand correct in that using the wiki code syntax for italic is considered a lint error? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not if there's just text or other inline elements in between the pairs of single quotes. So in this case I could have put the <div>-tags outside the quotes. But once we start to use those tags to format the content, it makes sense to use its style-property. --MarcoSwart (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
MarcoSwart: thanks for bringing this to my attention, and explaining. Your ears must have been burning because when I dropped by Nl.Wiktionary I thought to myself: I should visit Marco :) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I view my task as moderator to be a good host to all fellow editors, so in a way you did  . --MarcoSwart (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)