Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by GVarnum-WMF in topic Help needed
Content deleted Content added
→New wikis: new section |
GVarnum-WMF (talk | contribs) →Help needed: Reply |
||
| (91 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:LincolnBot/archiveconfig |
|||
{{Universal Code of Conduct/Talk}} |
|||
|archive = Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
== Scope == |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
}}{{Universal Code of Conduct/Talk}} |
|||
== Opt Out? Seriously == |
|||
The UCoC has a role as an optional fallback for those projects which don't have their own standards. Attempting to impose it on large, established communities such as English Wikipedia against consensus is just another power grab which will drive away editors. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 10:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Any website that forces you to opt-out of unsolicited e-mails can go screw itself. What is this, 2001? Change this process immediately and stop bothering people who DO NOT CARE. This account is retired anyway. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 00:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Voting results are in == |
|||
:100%, allow large wikis a ratification vote. This should be in each wiki's usual format (on en-wiki and I suspect on most others that means a community initiated, written, and closed RFC). If they ratify it, cool, we dotted is and crossed ts. If they don't, we dodge a minefield where communities are asked to abide by/enforce standards that don't have consensus. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Note that UCoC itself is already approved as a global policy (see [[:foundation:Universal Code of Conduct]]), and it technically already applies at all Wikimedia wikis. The discussion here is about the enforcement guidelines, rather than UCoC itself. [[User:Martin Urbanec|Martin Urbanec]] ([[User talk:Martin Urbanec|talk]]) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's been approved by the WMF, which unilaterally asserts the right to override policies "local" to much larger communities such as enwp. It will be interesting to see how that claim works in practice. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 21:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*The UCOC has not been ratified by the en.wiki community and therefore doesn't have consensus there. I expect they're developing a complete proposal with enforcement mechanisms fully documented before they ask us to ratify it, and I appreciate that. I do trust there won't be an attempt at an end-run around community ratification.[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] ([[User talk:S Marshall|talk]]) 23:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] the WMF, and the BOT, have formally stated that they view phase 1 as approved and not needing community ratification. I did have some very odd discussions with several T&S and Legal staffers on the topic, with some weird statements. This included that no-one had mentioned wanting ratification until the arbcom open letter, and then when provided with the diff during phase 1 consultations, went dark on the topic. But any ratification vote is (formally) purely on the EGs. I also remain unsure why they limited the revisions committee to just working on the enforcement guidelines. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::If they omit to hold a ratification RfC, then I'd anticipate the en.wiki community starting its own ratification RfC without them.--[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] ([[User talk:S Marshall|talk]]) 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:::This could happen. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 14:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
This message is ''only'' for people who forgot to add the voting information page to their watchlist. Voting results for the UCOC Enforcement Guidelines have been [[m:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Voting_statistics|published]]. 76% support, 24% oppose. Personally, I'm satisfied with the results. [[User:Adrianmn1110|Adrianmn1110]] ([[User talk:Adrianmn1110|talk]]) 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Enforcement by type of violations == |
|||
:I am surprised that there is 24% oppose. We should analyze deeply what things make them say NO with the UCoC. [[User:Alphama|<span style="background:#16BCDA;color:white;border-radius:4px;"> <b>A</b> l p h a m a </span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphama|Talk]]</sup> 10:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
There is nothing directly specifying UCoC violations by WMF staff & contractors, BOT, Working Groups or Committees. While its highly unlikely that people in some of the roles would cause an issue, its only fair that there be some recourse mentioned in this section for those areas. Aka Affcom oversees affiliates but who oversees Affcom, what if the Language committee denies a language because of racism, or a funding committee denies a community/individual without performance of certain actions? The way committees are developing with single regional representatives as the conduit for access, the shift to hybrid event like the Summit where a select few have access has opened the door for corruption. The current layout appears to create a set of untouchables in the movement, further enhancing that potential. There more WMF systems move off wiki the deeper these untouchables are able to cement power. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] ([[User talk:Gnangarra|talk]]) 12:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== What is the content of the training and is it public ? == |
|||
:@[[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] I agree with the general thrust to your point (in fact, both of them - one the level of power of off-wiki committees (this from someone who sits on one) and that some level of conduct route through them (other than internal or the BOT) is beneficial. This will be triply true should a global council come into being. I do however note that the UCOC does specify violations by WMF staffers and the BOT, as they need to specifically affirm it. The pathways for that would logically be wherever the nexus of the issues was. |
|||
:In line with what I interpret the spirit of your comment to be, I do encourage a tweak so that staffers' conduct can be directly taken to U4C (a "court of first instance") on projects where there isn't an arbcom or equivalent. Making a solo admin block of a staffer on those marginal cases will inherently involve a higher standard than would be applied to others, which shouldn't be the case. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 19:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I am a bit lost regarding the concrete nature of the training. Is there or will there be some material (like online documents, videos, etc.) that will somehow fix the content of the training. Would that material be public ? [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 00:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: OK, I just realized that the training is not yet elaborated. It is something planned. In my view, this is the most important part. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 12:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Help needed == |
||
From point '''3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations''' the text has not been translated in Dutch. I'm willing to give a hand, but the legal American english terms are too complicated to translate on my own. Also because I can't find the basic explanations of the drafting committee. So there's a need for support from some other people, with a more than moderate understanding of the english language and Dutch and American legal terms. Thanks! [[User:VanArtevelde|VanArtevelde]] ([[User talk:VanArtevelde|talk]]) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"See definition on Meta": As the link points to the '''definition on''' Meta, not Meta('s main page?) itself, the linked text should be "definition" or "definition on Meta". The current linking style is discouraged by dewiki and enwiki ([https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verlinken#Klartextlinks], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Piped_link#Transparency]). |
|||
**Makes sense, thanks again for the suggestion. [[User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] ([[User talk:RamzyM (WMF)|talk]]) 12:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*There is one too many newlines / paragraph breaks between "4.1 Purpose and scope" and "4.2 Selection, membership, and roles". [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**This was done, thanks for your oversight! [[User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] ([[User talk:RamzyM (WMF)|talk]]) 12:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**:That was quick [[File:Emoji_u1f60a.svg|20px|alt=😊]] thanks! [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 21:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I am pinging a recent Dutch translators (@[[User:HanV|HanV]]) in case they are able to help or have any input. At some point, we are hoping to have some of the organization's translators get involved and help out - but that is likely months/years away - and I am not 100% sure if Dutch is a language we have in that system just yet. Thank you both! --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 20:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines#2.1.1 Promoting UCoC awareness|Promoting UCoC awareness]] == |
|||
::I see that 3.1.2 Enforcement guidelines is only partly translated to dutch. If that is an important part of the documentation, i am willing to translated it. At the moment i choose first translating the fuzzy translations, second for the pages that are partly translated and at last for messagegroups that almost translated. Sometimes i translated real old things, but then it is more clear if something changes. |
|||
::Maar om in het Nederlands verder te gaan, het is goed dat een meer officieel stuk door meerdere personen met kennis van die taal wordt gelezen en dat het gebruik van termen in ieder geval consequent is en inhoudelijk gelijk aan het origineel. Het vertalen is lastig omdat je bijvoorbeeld zowel de term UCOC, Universal Code of Conduct als de vertaling Universele Gedragscode wilt gebruiken. Voor de leesbaarheid doe ik dat dan bovenin en gebruik ik later alleen maar Gedragscode. Maar het belangrijkste is natuurlijk om inhoudelijk gelijk te blijven en dan blijf je natuurlijk houden dat het wettelijk anders kan liggen in een land of dat we als vertalers het verkeerd begrijpen. [[User:HanV|HanV]] ([[User talk:HanV|talk]]) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
First, of all thank you for your work in removing the most problematic parts. Second I have a suggesting for this section: Why must it always the UCoC, that is linked, if local texts like e.g. [[:de:Wikipedia:Wikiquette]] exists. Of Course it has not the status of a policy, but it has nice recommendations in it, which are easy to understand. [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 00:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you, @[[User:HanV|HanV]]! We greatly appreciate your translation efforts. :) --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 16:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Privacy == |
|||
About the previous version I stated, that the sentence "The privacy of a case should be determined not only by those charged with resolving the case, but also with input from those who raised the initial report." could touch the praxis by the dewiki arbcom, to only have public cases. Do I understand correctly (in the dewiki), that now in cases, where somebody has a need for an arbcom and wants his privacy accepted, this first comes before the U4C, which then checks, whether there are privacy concerns. If yes itself decides the case, if not it is forwarded to the dewiki arbcom? [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC) PS: Why don't you call the U4C "interwiki arbcom"? |
|||
:I am speaking only for myself and not for the revisions committee or any other member of the committee. As the person who came up with the name U4C, I intentionally wanted something other than an arbcom. In my mind the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee should be doing more Coordinating than Arbitrating. And no if someone wants privacy they may continue to use an ArbCom, as long as local policy allows that. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Barkeep49}} So in your opinion all stays the same, also if local praxis doesn't allow privacy arbcom (only privacy admins etc.)? [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 11:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] in my opinion all stays the same for wikis with well developed processes like enwiki and dewiki. Neither has, based on what I know, any systemic failures which is when the U4C could get involved. I think the enforcement guidelines give communities options about how to allow private reporting. Three options are an arbcom, private reporting to admins, and private reporting to the U4C (or people the U4C delegates that to). Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks, for clarifying. [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::de-WP offers no standardized process of reporting while maintaining privacy: Oversights have an mail contact, but they are not responsible for resolving conflicts. And de-Arbcom has a rule that an AC-request has to be public ([[:de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Regeln#Anfrageerstellung]] ''Das Schiedsgericht muss offen angerufen werden.'' A rule that was introduce via RfC and cannot be changed easily.) They do offer, that you can send them additonal info via mail, but the request itself has to be public. |
|||
::::Two years ago, someone tried: [[:de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Belästigung]] Title is just "Arbcom/requests/Harassment( or /Molestation/nuisance)" The complete public description was ''Because of privacy reasons, all the info was sent to Arbcom via mail'' ("Aufgrund des Persönlichkeitsschutzes wurden sämtliche Informationen dem SG per E-Mail zugesendet.") This arbcom-request itself caused an immediate shitstorm ([[:de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Archiv/2020#Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Belästigung]]), leading to the arbcom not dealing with the request. [[User:Der-Wir-Ing|Der-Wir-Ing]] ("DWI") [[User talk:Der-Wir-Ing|talk]] 20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If de-WP arbcom cannot deal with a case because of privacy issues, some other method will be necessary. Some possibilities come to mind, but basically it is an internal issue at de: and I would not presume to advise them.· · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 14:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Confirming adherence == |
|||
The new text is a lot better IMO, thank you for revising it. What is the plan for how the listed groups of people will "confirm their adherence to the UCoC"? Is this something yet to be decided or did I miss it somewhere? [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 04:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Gibt es eine Synopse? == |
|||
Ist ja nett, dass da was überarbeitet wurde, allerdings sollte dann auch alt und neu schön sortiert nebeneinander gestellt werden, damit die Änderungen auch deutlich werden. Was wurde denn wo an welcher Formulierung konkret geändert?<br /> |
|||
<small><small>It's nice, that they are revised, but old and new should be made easy comparable side by side, so that the changes can be good evaluated. What was changed with wich concrete sentence where?</small></small><br /> Grüße vom [[User:Sänger|Sänger ♫]]<sup>([[User Talk:Sänger|Reden]])</sup> 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Sänger}} major changes are available for comparison [[Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Comparison|here]]. [[User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] ([[User talk:RamzyM (WMF)|talk]]) 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Could the people compiling the comparison table please indicate which text remains the same and which text has changed, by something like font or colour variations, or underlining. Alternatively, would it be acceptable if we do it ourselves? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::''major changes'' - in WMF we trust 😂 👍 ...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::: If they fail to disclose a substantive change, there will be a big reaction. They cannot afford this. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::: With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Pbsouthwood}} thanks for your good suggestion, Peter! I definitely agree that it would be helpful to add more distinguishing features to the comparison table. The example that I'm currently thinking to follow is the one we have for [[Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Changes|early Enforcement Guidelines text changes]], which our team should be able to prepare for this page soon. Please let me know if you have an even better suggestion, of course. Cheers, [[User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] ([[User talk:RamzyM (WMF)|talk]]) 13:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|RamzyM (WMF)}} That system looks adequate to me. Perhaps someone else will also comment? Thanks, · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Where is the scope of these decisions listed? == |
|||
From 3.3.3 Appeals: "Appeals are not possible against certain decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department." Could you link to where the scope of these non-appealable decisions is listed or defined please. ''Certain decisions'' is excessively vague. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 07:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:This information should also be covered in Module C2 - Handling appeals, closing cases (UCoC - Appeals): · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 07:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Also perhaps worth linking to the [[CRC]], assuming it still exists (and will do so post-UCOC?) [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]]: I believe you meant to link to [[Trust and Safety/Case Review Committee]]. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 00:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Indeed - this was after I rewrote it once because I tried to link to CAC. But at least that indicates they've not been through a name change (or perhaps they'll stop being interim?) [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Pbsouthwood}} This information needs to be in the guidelines, otherwise it violates the principle of certainty. [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 14:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Review category 4 == |
|||
The 4th review category (that of right to be heard, and evidentiary rights and interaction with anonymity) is much harder to pick out the changes for. In the major comparison table, it doesn't have a specific section in the way that training and affirmation do. |
|||
Something summarizing the changes (even if scattered in several places, and aware that some changes are additions and others are removals) would be appreciated for this. I've talked to several RC members, but that's not a very scalable method. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 09:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== And/or == |
|||
This page uses the words "and/or" several times. It would be better to replace it with something else. See [[w:en:And/or|And/or]] in the English Wikipedia. [[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 09:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Subsidiarity == |
|||
This page mentions ''subsidiarity'' as a "movement value". If I understand it correctly, it's probably a valid idea. However, the way in which it's mentioned in the document is problematic. "Subsidiarity" doesn't appear in any of the values documents, at least not explicitly. I checked [[Values/2008]] and [[Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/da|Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles]] and it's not there. The sections "Our communities are our biggest asset", "Stewardship", and "Shared power" are ''perhaps'' close to it, and I'm not even sure about that. |
|||
I've been in the Wikimedia movement since 2004, and I'm quite sure I've never heard this word. It appears only a handful of times in the archives of Wikimedia mailing lists. The page about it on Meta was created by @[[User:Sj|Sj]] just a couple of months ago. On other pages on Meta, it appears in many pages about Movement Strategy discussions from recent years, and sure, perhaps I should have made a better effort to follow the Movement Strategy discussions, but the people leading the Strategy process could also make a better effort to make the movement aware of this principle before quietly defining it as a "movement value". |
|||
Again, from what I've read about it in the last few days, it's probably a valid idea ''if'' I understand it correctly. But please, define this concept more clearly and publicly before basing major decisions on it. Otherwise, it will be just a piece of jargon among a few people on Meta. [[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 10:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== ArbCom == |
|||
This document mentions ArbCom a few times, and this term even has an entry in the glossary in the end. |
|||
The glossary should mention that only a few wikis actually have an ArbCom. Even some of the largest and most active wikis don't have one, for example the Wikipedias in Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew. |
|||
Most people in wikis in which an ArbCom doesn't exist don't even know what an ArbCom is. |
|||
My suggestion: |
|||
* The glossary should say that it's a body that exists in only some wikis. |
|||
* When the document mentions that the ArbCom should do something, it should also say something like "... if it exists". |
|||
[[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 11:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Admins to confirm == |
|||
The document recommends adding the UCoC to the Terms of Use, and also that some people must specifically confirm adherence to it: staff, board members, representatives, and trademark users. So far, so good. |
|||
In another section, it says that UCoC training should be given to ''Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial''. This also makes sense, but it puzzles me that the two lists overlap only partly: ''Advanced Rights Holders'' are included in the list for training, but not the list for confirmation. |
|||
According to the glossary at the bottom, local wiki admins are included in Advanced rights holders. Local wiki admins should also specifically, explicitly confirm the UCoC. For regular editors, inclusion of the UCoC in the Terms of Use is enough, but it's a good idea to get admins to confirm it explicitly. [[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 11:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== New wikis == |
|||
Continuing the topic of the previous section about who should explicitly confirm the UCoC, there's another group of people who should be required to confirm the UCoC: People who ask to create a new wiki through the [[Requests for new languages]] process. |
|||
This group is rarely discussed, and it doesn't have a technical definition, as it is with admins and stewards. In practice, however, these people are usually fairly well-defined intuitively, even if not technically: every new wiki has somebody who writes the creation request, creates the first Incubator articles, communicates to the Language committee and the translatewiki administrators, etc. Sometimes, although not always, this person is appointed to an administrator role in the Incubator. |
|||
This is an important leadership position, so these people's adherence to the UCoC should be verified. |
|||
(Important comment: I am a member of the [[Language committee]], which deals with new wiki creation, and this suggestion comes from my experience with that process. However, it is my own suggestion, and I didn't consult with other Language committee members about it.) [[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:50, 8 May 2024
 | This page is for discussions related to the page. Please remember to:
Discussion navigation:
Archives: 1 |
Opt Out? Seriously
Any website that forces you to opt-out of unsolicited e-mails can go screw itself. What is this, 2001? Change this process immediately and stop bothering people who DO NOT CARE. This account is retired anyway. Shadow2 (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Voting results are in
This message is only for people who forgot to add the voting information page to their watchlist. Voting results for the UCOC Enforcement Guidelines have been published. 76% support, 24% oppose. Personally, I'm satisfied with the results. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am surprised that there is 24% oppose. We should analyze deeply what things make them say NO with the UCoC. A l p h a m a Talk 10:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the content of the training and is it public ?
I am a bit lost regarding the concrete nature of the training. Is there or will there be some material (like online documents, videos, etc.) that will somehow fix the content of the training. Would that material be public ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I just realized that the training is not yet elaborated. It is something planned. In my view, this is the most important part. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Help needed
From point 3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations the text has not been translated in Dutch. I'm willing to give a hand, but the legal American english terms are too complicated to translate on my own. Also because I can't find the basic explanations of the drafting committee. So there's a need for support from some other people, with a more than moderate understanding of the english language and Dutch and American legal terms. Thanks! VanArtevelde (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am pinging a recent Dutch translators (@HanV) in case they are able to help or have any input. At some point, we are hoping to have some of the organization's translators get involved and help out - but that is likely months/years away - and I am not 100% sure if Dutch is a language we have in that system just yet. Thank you both! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see that 3.1.2 Enforcement guidelines is only partly translated to dutch. If that is an important part of the documentation, i am willing to translated it. At the moment i choose first translating the fuzzy translations, second for the pages that are partly translated and at last for messagegroups that almost translated. Sometimes i translated real old things, but then it is more clear if something changes.
- Maar om in het Nederlands verder te gaan, het is goed dat een meer officieel stuk door meerdere personen met kennis van die taal wordt gelezen en dat het gebruik van termen in ieder geval consequent is en inhoudelijk gelijk aan het origineel. Het vertalen is lastig omdat je bijvoorbeeld zowel de term UCOC, Universal Code of Conduct als de vertaling Universele Gedragscode wilt gebruiken. Voor de leesbaarheid doe ik dat dan bovenin en gebruik ik later alleen maar Gedragscode. Maar het belangrijkste is natuurlijk om inhoudelijk gelijk te blijven en dan blijf je natuurlijk houden dat het wettelijk anders kan liggen in een land of dat we als vertalers het verkeerd begrijpen. HanV (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @HanV! We greatly appreciate your translation efforts. :) --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)