Wikidata talk:Universal Code of Conduct consultation/2021 Local Language Consultation

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Overview

  

Draft of Enforcement guideline

  

Current policy text

  

Game

  

Join the discussion!

  

Consultation report

  

Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)

This will be the general space for discussion about the consultation for the Universal Code of Conduct. Please, ask your questions and have your say! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidding talking about Conflict of Interests is bad[edit]

Some of the vandalism on Wikidata is due to users wanting to advocate for a particular interest. In conflict between different ethnicities it frequently happens that users who are involved in the conflict because they belong to one of the ethnicities engage in non-neutral editing of pages that are relevant for the content. Being able to say that those users engage in conflict of interest edits is valuable for the goal of having a neutral Wikipedia and currently it seems the draft intends to forbid speaking about ethnicities. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most conflicts (here and in other wikis) fall into one of two categories: those (a) between people "involved in" (i. e. having an opinion on) some subject, and (b) those that end up on some list of silliest Wikipedia edit wars. Ethnicity/nationality just happens to be one where it is more obvious, especially on Wikidata where you can usually check someone's other accounts to find out where they are from.
Deducing a conflict of interest from someone's nationality would also clash with AGF: it is quite possible for, say, someone from Luxembourg to be as objective regarding some conflict involving that country as someone from another country. And as long as it is possible, the policy requires any doubt to resolve in their favour.
Having witnessed some conflicts along those lines (more on enwiki than wikidata), I know it can be maddening to avoid mentioning what feels like a herd of elephants in the room. But since it is rare for such people to restrict their editing to just a single article/item, there is usually a pattern in their work, and I do not believe any policy prohibits mentioning that. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthias Winkelmann: Conflicts of interest have nothing to do with whether or not someone has an objective understanding but with their interests. In a court a judge doesn't get removed for conflicts of interests from a case because of the charge that they don't have an objective understanding of subject matter. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the UCoC text forbids discussing conflicts of interest.
However, one's (presumed) nationality, or any other demographic fact or supposition about them, must not be taken as sufficient to establish conflict of interest. It is, as you both mention, very likely that in some topics hotly debated outside the wiki, for example border disputes between countries, we may get relatively a lot of participation by volunteers from the involved countries, each citing sources from their national establishments or national newspapers (which would generally be considered reliable on most other matters).
I would like to suggest that an appropriate way to deal with that kind of non-neutral editing is to address the substance of the edit and the supporting sources, that is, not "you are from country X, therefore you have a conflict of interest!", but rather "this fact is in dispute between countries X and Y; Wikidata is not going to take sides in the dispute; we need to accurately reflect the facts of the dispute, namely, first of all, that there is a dispute, and secondly, that different claims are made by different parties. The sources you brought to argue that Wikidata should only say X, being issued by or in country X, can therefore only be taken to support the fact that country X claims so and so, rather than to settle the dispute one way or another".
That way, we do not disqualify anyone from participating or contributing, no matter where they're from or how they identify, and we hold everyone to the same evidentiary standard. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asaf (WMF): Disqualifying people from participating and talking about the reasons for them participating in a different way are not the same thing. The policy draft speaks about "prohibited ways to distinguish people". Using language to distinguish people is a way to build a shared understanding of a situation among multiple people and when you forbid people to speak about certain conflict of interests.
Imagine there's a edit dispute on the page of Jerusalem between Arabian and Israeli users. The case goes for Arbcom and one of the people currently in Arbcom is an Israeli Jewish person. A policy that prohibited ways to distinguish people based on ethnicity forbids discussion of whether this person should excuse themselves from the Arbcom proceeding based on their conflict of interest. I think the discussion about whether a particular user in a case like this should recuse himself should not be forbidden by a code of conduct even if you hold the position that a person like that shouldn't recuse themselves.
I don't think any existing Wikipedia gives paid SEO people the same evidentiary standards as experienced users. On the other hand there are valid cases where a user with domain expertise doesn't get challenged to the same extend as a user that doesn't have domain expertise. If a user for which we have a Wikidata entry comes to Wikidata and says that the birthdate we store for them is wrong because source XY got it wrong, I think we treat that differently then we treat a random user making the same claim. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: first of all, thank you very much for your interventions. The issue you're bringing is an actually interesting case of interpretation/application of the UCoC, and quite a delicate one. I'll try to flesh out here a tentative answer.
Let me start from the phrase «The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are included here as prohibited ways to distinguish people»: this is meant to be read in the context of the paragraph it is written in, which deals with insults. That note has been inserted during phase 1 because in many countries (especially European ones) "race" is a very controversial word when applied to humans.
This is why that phrase is followed by «The Wikimedia movement does not endorse these terms as meaningful distinctions among people and believes that they should not be used outside of prohibiting them as the basis for personal attacks». In other words, the meaning of the phrase that you quoted is "you must not use race and/or ethnicity as a way to insult a user, ever".
This is definitely a different "use case" from the one you're discussing, which is - if I got it right - «talking about the reasons for [people] participating in a different way» because of a perceived conflict of interest they might have in editing, as well as the «discussion about whether a particular user in a case like this should recuse [themselves ...] even if you hold the position that a person like that shouldn't recuse themselves».
In relation to this point, I can definitely assure you that such a discussion is not forbidden at all by the UCoC. What is forbidden (and is already so, in fact) is to assume a user's bad faith, using their nationality or ethnicity to substantiate the fact, or even worse accusing or insulting them because of that. But a general discussion about a perceived COI on such basis is not forbidden - although, personally I think that it would be a difficult (euphemism) discussion anyway.
I hope I answered your question, but if I didn't or if you have more to discuss about this, please let me know. :) Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): What do you mean when you say "you can reassure me?" You interpreting the policy in a way that doesn't indicate this, doesn't reassure me. The way to reassure me would be to change the wording in a way that makes it clear that it's not the meaning of the policy. Good policy writing is about writing a policy in a way where it's clear what it's meant.
Given that you reference that "race" is controversial in European countries, a common German perspective would be that speaking about people race in a context like the one I pointed to above is wrong. The general German perspective is that race is no scientific concept and shouldn't be used to distinguish humans.
A while ago we even had a controversy when a German agency asked Asylum seekers for their Ethnic identity. It turns out they needed that information because some people face persecution for their Ethnic identity that matters for whether they are eligible for Asylum.
From the German perspective (and some other European countries) requiring people in a survey to distinguish themselves by their race can easily seen as insulting.
The policy is quite explicit in saying "(Note: The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are included here as prohibited ways to distinguish people. The Wikimedia movement does not endorse these terms as meaningful distinctions among people and believes that they should not be used outside of prohibiting them as the basis for personal attacks).
While I have no problem with forbidding the current practice of asking people for ethnicity in WMF to be outlawed by a Code of Conduct, I do think that there are other cases where using ethnicity (but not race) to distinguish people is valuable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I confirm what I already said: ethnicity and/or race cannot be used as basis for personal attacks, but a frank discussion about the issue, realised without the intention of discriminating someone, is allowed. I already took note of your position, and actually I find it an aspect that will have to be taken into consideration in the current phase, where we're moving in the application of such policies on the various projects. Actually, I encourage you in bringing forward other cases like this, so that we can all discuss how to adapt and revise the global policy and its application on Wikidata. :) --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
REː how to adapt and revise the global policy
@Sannita (WMF), ChristianKl: Sannita's comment above suggests that the OCOC is still in limbo. This is in direct contradiction to the statemnetː

This page is one of the discussion hubs for the second phase of the consultation, that will focus on how to enforce the UCoC

Are you suggesting that the first phase has no been completed? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: No, Phase 1 is completed. At the time I was writing, the policy text was awaiting a formal approval from the Board, which arrived on Feb 2. This officially completed Phase 1, even though the text was already in a "stable form" by the time consultations on Wikidata started. For every consideration about Phase 1, please refer to the main page here or the one on Meta, not to outdated discussions.
As for Phase 2, the one is about to close, we were asking for direct feedback on aspects related to implementing the UCoC, such as revising and completing existing policies, evaluating cases and potential ideas, and so on.
As for the revision of the global policy, every year or so it is expected a "global check" on the policy, to be 100% sure new aspects or issues can be included if necessary in the policy.
Hope this helps. --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): Reː̺As for Phase 2, the one is about to close Thank you for the prompt reply and for pinging me. I am surprised to find out that this discussion is about to close since I only recived an invitation to it a couple of days ago. When exactly will it close? I was hoping to bring it to the attention of others. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Actually the discussion was supposed to be closed yesterday, but I managed to get some more days. The current phase should close on March 3, but there will be other discussions and places for discussion. Also, if you wish, we can set up a 1:1 meeting on a separate platform (such as Jitsi) in the next days, to have a little chat. --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): Thanks again for your attention. Is the closing date of this discussion mentioned anywhere other than here? As far as 1ː1 meeting -- why is it necessary to talk privately, can't we discuss things in public? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meta question[edit]

There's a parallel discussion page on meta that doesn't seem to be overburdened with comments at the moment. Is it intentional to run separate discussions, or is this due to some copy & paste mishap (some link in the announcement or on the draft linked to the discussion on meta, although I can't seem to find it now) --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthias Winkelmann: Yes, it is intentional. The scope of this phase is to collect as many feedback as we can, and as much specific from every community that is involved. For instance, Wikidata and Commons were chosen because of their multilingual nature, and WMF wanted to know how two communities that have so many users from so many diverse backgrounds would receive and enforce the UCoC. The problem with Meta is that is a coordination project, and so to speak we would have lost focus on what are the specific problems or approaches from a single community. Hopefully I answered your question, but feel free to contact me for any need. :) --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): Thanks for allowing me to participate in this discussion. When I logged in to wikidata to do something else, I was presented with an invitation to participate in this discussion. Had it not been for this invitation I would not have known about this WMF very important initiative.
Let me start by asking a question: When I tried to log in to commons I did not see an invitation to participate in the discussion. Is there a similar discussion taking place at commons? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Yes, there's a similar discussion going on on Commons. You can participate here, there, or on both. :) Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): I have also posted at Commons, but the discussion there seems to have been deserted. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthias Winkelmann: I am blocked on Meta so the ability to comment here is very welcome.
There are other wikimedians who are blocked on some projects, but not on others. Having the consultation available on several wikis allows participation for some who are otherwise voiceless. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First round questions: pathways for applying UCoC[edit]

It's time to kick-start the discussion about the Universal Code of Conduct and how to implement it. So let's get started with the first round of questions, about the pathways for UCoC enforcement.

Bear in mind that this is only the first round of questions, and that there are other aspects that will be taken into consideration, but if you think something's missing, please do bring it up in the discussion! Be bold and have your say! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #1: What are the best paths for delicate issues?[edit]

For example, consider a user belonging to a "vulnerable group" (in the broadest, most comprehensive meaning of the term), who is a target of actual (not perceived) harassment and/or credible threats of violence through our channels. In your opinion, how this case can be addressed? What would be the best path on the project for this user to report what is happening?

  • As of now on Wikidata, I would think any such problem would be brought to Wikidata:AN; if the person did not want to make such a public request then contacting an administrator in some other form would be appropriate. There is also privacy@wikidata.org as described in our Wikidata:Living people policy. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This question is horribly phrased. The most broadest term would be that all humans are vulnerable. It doesn't define what it means with "actual (not perceived) harassment". Community channels work for cases where admins who engage with the issue at hand don't face personal risks from doing so. If a user makes credible threats of violence or legal threats that might dissuade community members from engaging with the despite, there's a role for the Wikimedia Trust and Safety team. The test whether the Wikimedia Trust and Safety should take enforcement actions is not about the victim but the circumstances towards which community members who would listen to the complaint would be exposed.
On Wikidata our ways to report are the admin noticeboard or messaging individual admins. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • T&S I guess. At least this is what I have done when I needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with ArthurPSmith. --Epìdosis 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should reword this question if it is to elicit a meaningful response. For example: How and where can a harassed editor get help from someone with the power to stop the harasser without exposing themselves to further abuse? Vexations (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question phrases excellently a sensitive case, with privacy ramifications. The best path is of course a private channel to report an incident or complaint, with a the receiving side well-trained volunteers who have signed a confidentiality agreement. Any such provision is currently missing in the horrible text of the UCoC. However, the Contributor Covenant provides not only a concise and readable code of conduct text, but also a clear pathway to report by stating "Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at [INSERT CONTACT METHOD]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly. All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the reporter of any incident." Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #2: How do we create better reporting pathways for people who are targets of harassment?[edit]

In other words, do you think our current ways of dealing with non-welcome behaviours is the best way to report and deal with harassment too? Or do you think a separate or a complementary procedure should be set up? If yes, how?

  • If it is not a personal privacy issue then the privacy@wikidata.org email address may seem inappropriate for this purpose, so perhaps an alternate email address should be set up with similar rules. Otherwise I would guess the main problem with the current situation is awareness by users of what the options are. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having an email address where messages that are sent at that address are readable by all admins would be a way to have additional reporting pathways for users who don't want to report on the admin noticeboard.
I wouldn't have a problem with the Trust and Safety team taking reports of harassment. It's just not their job to decide on conflict resolution. To the extend that the trust and safety team things an individual complaint should be acted upon they should inform Wikidata admins and let Wikidata admins make the decisions about how to handle an individual issue. They could council the person who reports and themselves forward information but in cases where the perpetrator isn't making legal threat or engage in criminal actvity like threating violence it's not their job to be prosecutor or judge. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest adding something to account talk pages to make it really clear how to make a report. I've been on the site a fair while and (happily) I know nothing about these procedures. That's a privilege but it does mean that if there was some issue, I wouldn't know where to begin. I imagine that's common to many users. Very much in favour of the Code in principle. --Mr impossible (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onwiki reporting does not provide the needed safety. The best path is of course a private channel to report an incident or complaint, with a the receiving side well-trained volunteers who have signed a confidentiality agreement. Any such provision is currently missing in the horrible text of the UCoC. However, the Contributor Covenant provides not only a concise and readable code of conduct text, but also a clear pathway to report by stating "Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at [INSERT CONTACT METHOD]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly. All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the reporter of any incident." Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #3: How do we deal with incidents that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects, but are directly related to them?[edit]

For example, consider a Wikimedia-related discussion between Wikimedians that takes place on a non-Wikimedia platform, such as Telegram or Facebook or a mailing list, that degenerates in public harassment or other non-welcome behaviours. How would you deal with it? Should it have repercussions also on the projects?

  • This starts to sound like somebody would present a detailed case with evidence against someone; I don't think we have any mechanism for that right now within Wikidata. Are there examples of such things happening in other Wikimedia projects (or in Wikidata already)? I don't think Wikidata admins are equipped to police Telegram or Facebook or mailing list discussions. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of any existing problem we have had in this regard. Our block policy doesn't say that "Personal attacks or harassment" need to happen within Wikidata to be a valid reason for banning, so when needed we could ban people for-offsite activity. In addition anyone who's the admin fo a Telegram chat or Facebook group should policy their venue. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I still had a FB account I pretty early decided that I am not going to participate in these discussions, and reading them made me seriously disappointed in a number of people whom I thought are reputable Wikimedia community members and who turned out to be stupid idiots incapable of understanding what other people say. Well, I would say we should just not care what people are doing outside Wikimedia projects, however, links to these discussions, and, even worse, administrative actions based on consensus established in these discussions, are not really acceptable, and if persistent must be stopped by blocks and bans.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we start caring about the behaviours beyond wikimedia project, it will be ambiguous to find out the suspect and not sure about realiaty. If that dealt with the social media It should be deal within that social media. The clear case can applying the UCoC enforcement could be the on/offline community meetups I guess. Note: I am facilitator for same thingy in Korean communities, but this comment is my personal view.--*Youngjin (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback to questions[edit]

  • I think it's worrysome to write "pathways for enforcement" over those questions when none of the questions are about enforcement but about reporting. This gives the appearence that the questions are setup to be manipulative. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my bad. Since I'm not en-N, I chose the wrong title. Thanks for the feedback, I'll choose a better name tomorrow. --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves" is unclear[edit]

When having a discussion with a user I consider it reasonable to respect the way the contributor names himself and describes himself. If there's however a Wikidata item for the user, it's not up to the user to decide about the name of the item but up to our general naming guidelines. To the extend that our naming guidelines call for transliterating certain characters for labels in a given language it's not up to a user to decide that they want a non-standard sign in their name that won't be transliterated. The names we use for items for physical or mental disabilities should go after our naming guidelines and the code of conduct shouldn't forbid using the name that medical authorities use for those disabilities or people who suffer from those disabilities even when those names differ from the self-labeling of individuals. This section should be edited to make it clear that it's about community discussion and not about content. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda roundabout in its wording, but I'm pretty sure it's basically intending to say "don't address people with terms that they consider slurs". E.g. if they openly identify as romani, don't refer to them with "gipsy" and so on. Also don't use demeaning nicknames (in fact I had to put my foot down about that over on Wikispecies some time ago, about the way people would refer to a former now banned admin). Circeus (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Code[edit]

Hi,

Just a quick note to say that I think this code seems to be quite good (of course some wordings may not be perfect, especially when translated in so many languages) but I think it's still very useful. There will always be some hurdles on how exactly to act upon this Code, but at least having it written down in one place can only make the situation better.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second round questions: reporting system[edit]

Welcome to the second round of questions about the ways of implementing UCoC, this time focusing on the reporting system. I tried this time to better formulate the questions, but please remember that I have to be as much general as possible in formulating questions.

As I said for the first round questions, there are other aspects that will be taken into consideration, but if you think something's missing, please do bring it up in the discussion! Be bold and have your say!

Also, if you haven't answered the first round questions, go give them some love. ;) --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #4: How do we balance privacy and safety of reporters with transparency and accountability of reports?[edit]

The movement strategy calls for establishing private reporting options - which can be of use in case users do not feel safe in reporting publicly. However, private reporting hinders a core principle of our community: transparency (also regarding the possibility of the users involved in the report to have their say). How can we balance these two needs?

  • Perhaps by creating a separate "OTRS-like wiki" that is on "a need-to-know" basis when reports are filed, but can become "open to the public" if all (volunteer) parties agree to that, not everything should be discussed openly, but not everything should be left behind closed doors forever. At the Dutch-language Wikipedia e-mails sent to the ArbCom get posted on-wiki and the community has a chance to respond to them, perhaps an automated e-mail response system should ask, "should this report be openly published?" to add more transparency. I believe that wiki's can only work if information is freely shared, unless it really is too bad to be posted openly, then it should be locked behind "need-to-know" pages. In this wiki I envision that the pages where such cases are brought can only be edited by relevant parties (basically invite-only for us volunteers, but freely accessible for WMF staff), but if someone has more information they should be able to e-mail the WMF with a valid ticket number, every page has a ticket number. -- Donald Trung/徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 15:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we want someone to change their behavior we have to explain to them what actions they took that go against our norms. The same goes for banning a person.
Confidential reports can still be used to bring awareness about problematic behavior of users and afterwards admins can investigate the conduct of the person about whom someone complained confidentially. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #5: How do we balance users' privacy and the need to track long-term and/or cross-wiki abusers?[edit]

One of the principal problems for admins is retaining memory of persistent/long-term vandals and abusers, as well as cross-wiki ones. This means communicating with people outside the projects, but also potentially retaining data that should not be disclosed lightly. How can we balance these two needs?

  • Basically my above proposal, perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation can have a Stasi-like record if reports are made of each user involved, but that the relevant user can have full access to their page (basically they will have access to their own page and no other volunteer). If they get globally banned then they may have an option to have their record be made publicly available (for transparency). -- Donald Trung/徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 15:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #6: How can we better manage reports?[edit]

Creating new ways for reporting might likely increase the number of reports, as well as complicating the way to retain memory of violations and abusers. How can we better manage the reporting system, in sight of this?

Other feedback[edit]

Use this space for other feedback needed. Questions weren't clear? Something is missing? Do you want to address other aspects that you think are important? Please, let me know!

It seems the main question is not asked: how do we make sure that the people that judge complaints are not biased, not prejudiced, without preconceptions, without prejudgement, being impartial, not a direct colleague/team member/etc of any of the involved people, well informed (read: understanding) about all kinds of diversity matters and disabilities in the movement, taking all sides of an issue seriously and not only from one side, understanding social differences from different areas around the world and not just think that what one individual learned is common practise around the world, that they do actual efforts to work towards a solution, that they fact check what happened by asking other (uninvolved) people about what happened, and they must understand mistakes can happen unintentionally. This all went wrong multiple times in the past years, and this was often kept indoors under treats, power abuse, and more. Further, people that feel hurt have a need for comfort, such should also be taken care off. Just as the ombuds commission they must be independent and work with the greatest care. Romaine (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine: Just to be 100% sure: this is going to be discussed with the online survey and with the next rounds of questions. So, don't worry, this is one of the most important issues that we will collect feedback on. :) --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sannita (WMF)! I must say what is expected from people who click on the banner (I just clicked on) is not really clear, nor I have an idea what is going to be when. I set up various banners, and the thing I make sure of is that participants instantly know what is expected/etc. I am looking forward to the next steps. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third round of questions: again on reporting[edit]

So, while there is also a online survey going on about this consultation, here we go with a third round of questions. Again the topic will be reporting, but this time from other (and conflicting) points of view.

As always, there are other (although few!) aspects that will be taken into consideration, but if you think something's missing, please do bring it up in the discussion! Be bold and have your say! Also, if you haven't answered in the previous rounds of questions, go give them some love. ;) --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #7: How do we handle allegations against a user who belong to functionary groups or to the functionary group itself?[edit]

What happens, or should happen, when somebody who violates the Universal Code of Conduct is also a functionary on a project (i.e. admin, bureaucrat, steward...)? How can a user feel "safe" in reporting a violation from such a user (or group of users)? Should we ask to somebody else to be a third-party moderator? Or can we deal with it ourselves?

  • Well, it must be a standing committee (probably appointed) which handles these reports, similar to ArbCom (or in fact to Ombudsman Committee). If a committee member is involved in the report (I would even say if they have the same homewiki) they recuse. Translations must be somehow be arranged if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #8: How can we protect all users against false allegations?[edit]

What happens, or should happen, if a report of alleged violations of the UCoC proves to be completely unfounded or even false? What happens, or should happen, if the reporter keeps insisting on such alleged violations? How can we defend the liberty of action of people involved in the arbitration, and the validity of the arbitration itself?

  • The same as if somebody loses a case in court - if this is libel they get sued themselves; if there is no libel but the complainaint does not want to accept the verdict, they get escorted out.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to agree there need to be consequences for false reporting. Various online platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, etc. have been plagued by false abuse reports from politically motivated groups, leading to deplatforming and content censorship. We have to make sure that the same does not occur in any of the wikis.Ottawajin (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question #9: How would a potential "dispute resolution body" work with your community?[edit]

In your opinion, should there be such a body or should we look into already existing solutions? If there was consensus for a "dispute resolution body", would you think it would be a good idea for Wikidata to have one, or to join a global one?

  • It should probably be a global one. I can not foresee a number of cases which would justify such a body on Wikidata - and if it were justify, we should have had an Arbitration Committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback[edit]

Use this space for other feedback needed. Questions weren't clear? Something is missing? Do you want to address other aspects that you think are important? Please, let me know!

Can we have a universal no-attack-pages rule?[edit]

A no-attack-pages provision is a rule on some wikis, but just an essay/suggestion on other wikis. Wikipedias should not be used as a platform for targeting and demonizing already marginalized people (emphasis on a rule prohibiting creation of articles dedicated to negative things about a specific ethnic group, not standard "criticism of [political idealogy etc liberalism/republicanism/etc]" type articles).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I'd have hoped the UCoC would be more explicit on diversity, ranging from gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and cultural background to political view and religious belief. A non-discrimination declaration would IMHO be an interesting addition. Lymantria (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PlanespotterA320, Lymantria: Thanks for your intervention! I really appreciated your feedback. This made me realise - and I gave it a long thought before intervening myself, because I hoped this discussion would have had more community input - that there was in the past a community discussion about Wikidata:Behavior norms, which is still a draft of a page about conflict resolutions on Wikidata.
In the talk page, we (including me as a volunteer) discussed various aspects, about the negative behaviours you both are referring to, but also about the positive behaviours we would like to see and promote. In your opinion, would your considerations be a good point to restart the community discussion about that draft? (Speaking as a volunteer, I'd like to have both your suggestions in the next revision of the UCoC, but for the time being at least we can include it here on Wikidata as our basic rule) --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reaction, Sannita, and indeed I think a community discussion would be a good follow-up. Lymantria (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sitenotice[edit]

As few people have Sitenotice in their WL, FYI: MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Why_sitenotice_and_why_direct_link_to_Google_website --Base (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment: definition differs from others[edit]

Regarding: "Sexual harassment: Sexual attention or advances of any kind towards others where the person knows or reasonably should know that the attention is unwelcome or in situations where consent cannot be communicated."

It seems to me that this point, unlike others, is written in a way that implies that the target of the behavior is somehow responsible for determining whether behavior is inappropriate or not. If someone uses a slur towards me, I don't have to be the one deciding if it's a slur. If someone starts hitting on me or making sexual comments about me I shouldn't have to be the one deciding whether it's a sexual comment. This leads straight towards a sexist double-standard track where the defense becomes a victim-blaming "but they didn't tell me I had to stop" or "they didn't tell me CLEARLY ENOUGH that I had to stop".

Wikimeda projects are similar to a workplace, where people collaborate to achieve a common goal. Wikipedia is not a dating site or a bar. It might be fine to say "I really liked X's presentation today"; it's not acceptable to say "Doesn't X look hot today?" Seriously, is there ANY situation on Wiki where "sexual attention or advances of any kind" would be comsidered an appropriate behavior? Because that's what this phrasing implies. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When my aunt worked on the production line at General Motors in the 1970s she was one of the only female factory line workers. One or more men, trying to get her to quit, would place pornography in places where they knew she'd find it. In Wikipedia with mostly male editors, in my 9 years here, I feel most editors are gentlemen. However, recently there was an editor who made changes to a symbol of my country that I believe is sexual harrassment. In a situation like that, who decides if an action is or is not sexual harrassment? Is a vote taken? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, administrators should be able to take care of such accidents.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Are you suggesting approaching any admin on their talkpage, posting a public complaint on w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or something else? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think people validly join volunteer organizations to make friends and find romantic partners in a way that people don't get a job for the same reason. While I doubt that frequently comes up onwiki, the code of conduct also is for local Wikimedia meetups where people might want to flirt and while companies in some countries forbid any dating from their workers that's not reasonable for a volunteer organization. "reasonably should know that the attention is unwelcome" is a good standard in that regard.
As far as "who decides" that's what the debate about enforcement of the Code of Conduct is about. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking out for fellow contributors[edit]

2.2 – Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship ...Looking out for fellow contributors: Lend them a hand when they need support, and speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct

Finally! a principle that is sorely missing in both the English Wikipedia and from Meta. I very much like this principleː On the few occasions that I tried to step up and help somebody else, the heat was instead turned out on me. When others came to my aid, they in turn suffered. So how will this principle be enforced? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a question that we, as volunteers, will need to answer, and this was also one of the points raised in another part of the discussion. As I said there, there is a draft page about "behaviour norms" that is sitting still since months. It might be a possibility for the community in the next months to discuss the point in the related talk page. --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft nondiscrimination policy[edit]

Hi - I am not sure if WMF staff have seen this yet - en:Wikipedia:English Wikipedia non-discrimination policy. I created this with the idea of making it live on the English Wikipedia first, but hit a roadblock in more widely introducing it. I did receive feedback from about a dozen Wikipedians, so it is a collaborative, well-researched and thought-out effort. I wish this CoC would have its nondiscrimination segments developed more thoroughly; detailed NPDs are commonplace for organizations nowadays. Feel free to read through, comment, and utilize if you would like! Ɱ (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: I don't know what is NPDs are. Can you pease explain? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nondiscrimination policies, punishing people who discriminate against protected classes like race, sex, age, etc. They're required for nearly every major company or organization in most major countries. Ɱ (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That policy draft is horribly written. Forbidding any obstructing changes to articles that aim to improve accessibility for readers whether or not those improve accessibility seems like a pretty awful idea. Policies that are written without any thought about tradeoffs are bad. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but this isn't too well-written; I don't understand what you're trying to convey here. But it seems like you have an issue with one idea and so call the whole thing horrible. Perhaps try constructive criticism instead? Ɱ (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: You have a policy that proposes that if someone intend (aim) is to do something they should be allow to do it. According to the proposed policy if my intend is to increase the accessibility of an article by deleting half of it so that it's easier to read nobody is allowed to revert me. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concept you're thinking of is ridiculous. Of course that wouldn't be permitted, and Wikipedias generally have very defined parameters for accessibility. I don't think I've ever heard of someone suggesting that by removing text, you're making it more accessible. To me, this reads like complaints about any policy or guideline. Of course there will -always- be some way to crazily interpret it or make up a wack scenario, but that's why policies are backed with enforcement from people who understand it, and wouldn't permit slapdash content removal for the sake of "accessibility". Ɱ (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy draft even specifically mentions to refer to en:MOS:ACCESS, the predominant guide on en:wp for addressing and fixing accessibility issues. Now I don't see anything unreasonable there, and as expected, nothing stating that article length is an accessibility problem. Ɱ (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: I'm not in the position of commenting it, since it is not Wikidata-related, but it might become a point of discussion on en.wp about the implementation and adaptation of the UCoC on that project. Thanks for noticing me about the link, I'll be sure to include it in my reports. :) --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just figured as a semi-frequent Wikidata editor, and having been prompted to comment via the watchlist notification here, I could bring it up here early on. I appreciate including it. Ɱ (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 consultation is over[edit]

As you can read from the title, the second phase of the consultation about the Universal Code of Conduct is now closed. This means that the phase in which several communities (Arabian, Bengali, Italian, Korean, Malay, Nepalese, Polish, Yoruba, plus Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons) commented with their concerns, suggestions, ideas and opinion is now over.

Now, we facilitators will work to collect and sum up all of your feedback and answers. The results and the relative data will then be published on Meta (you'll be noticed when this will happen), and will also be available to the Committee that will draft the second part of the UCoC, regarding the implementation of the Code and the reporting system.

This doesn't mean that the discussion is over! There will be new rounds of consultations on Meta and with our numerous Affiliates, and there is space also for a community discussion here on Wikidata about implementing ourselves the UCoC. I'll be glad to give a help as a volunteer, if it will be so.

Meanwhile, I want to thank all the people who took part to the discussions, reached to me in private, answered the survey or were victim of my requests for participating! You've been great, and I truly thank you for your help!

If you want to keep in touch, keep following the page about the UCoC here or on Meta, and please let your voice be heard!

Cheers, --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct - Phase 2 consultations on Meta are starting![edit]

Hello everyone! This message is to let you know that Phase 2 consultations on Meta about the Universal Code of Conduct will start next week.

These consultations will be an additional round to the ones we already had in this page, with the explicit purpose of expanding the discussions beyond the communities (like ours) that have already been consulted. The results of our consultations will be published next week too.

Please, feel free to contribute additional thoughts in this meta consultation as well, if you'd like to. For further questions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of Wikidata consultation is online[edit]

Hello everyone, just a quick note to inform you that the summary of the Wikidata consultation is online on Meta at m:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Enforcement/Wikidata community.

If you have any comment, question, clarification or anything else, please let me know here or on the summary's talk page on Meta. Also, if you want to help me translate the summaries, that would be very much appreciated!

Thanks again for your help and support! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct_consultation/2021_Local_Language_Consultation&oldid=1482672674"