Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Content deleted Content added
Line 12: Line 12:
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committee denies a community/individual without cause or places impractical conditions on a grant forcing it to be withdrawn/denied ? The current layout appears to create a set of untouchables in the movement. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] ([[User talk:Gnangarra|talk]]) 12:27, 11 September 2022 (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committee denies a community/individual without cause or places impractical conditions on a grant forcing it to be withdrawn/denied ? The current layout appears to create a set of untouchables in the movement. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] ([[User talk:Gnangarra|talk]]) 12:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


== "See definition on Meta" ==
== Minor syntactical issues ==


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]). [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:19, 11 September 2022 (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]).
*There is one too many newline / paragraph break 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)

Revision as of 19:31, 11 September 2022

Scope

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. Certes (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agree, UCoC should not apply on enwik, as enwiki can handle itself. Rockstone35 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

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. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Enforcement by type of violations

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 cause or places impractical conditions on a grant forcing it to be withdrawn/denied ? The current layout appears to create a set of untouchables in the movement. Gnangarra (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Minor syntactical issues

  • "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 ([1], [2]).
  • There is one too many newline / paragraph break between "4.1 Purpose and scope" and "4.2 Selection, membership, and roles". ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply