Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Vote
I find it a bit disappointing that the count of numbers is being celebrated
here, and these numbers were released without consideration to any concerns
being raised. On projects its the value of the argument not the number of
votes that matter.

FWIW - I recommended against the enforcement guidelines,

1. potential for abuse by those that can write better, especially when
it comes to people where the language isn't their first language.
2. the heavy judgemental process, lack of suitable support to the
accused during and after the outcome. I doubt this quasi-legal process is a
sufficiently robust process and that it never could be. Scenario: a person
living in a country without LGTBI+ protections being attacked through this
process by a cultural clique which ends in self harm or public
identification and legal harm in their home.
3. that enforcement isnt just blocking access to a website, its impact
will be far greater and have life & legal consequences beyond the
4. it opens the door to bad faith government actors especially in
smaller languages where controlling the narrative is paramount and well

I do accept the UCoC as being a good policy, but the enforcement process is
leaping over the line of uncontrollable consequences and ultimately having
a chilling effect on positive neutral participation. We cant refectify any
errors this process makes even if those errors were made in good faith at
the time. Nor do we have the community resources to revisit and reassess
every action that was later found to have involved a person acting in
bad faith.


On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 05:27, Risker <> wrote:

> Just noting in passing that the SecurePoll default for "home wiki" is the
> project on which an account made its first edit. A large number of editors
> who would consider their "home wiki" a different project (or even a
> different language entirely) made their first edit on English Wikipedia;
> the same is true of several of the other "large" Wikipedias. The extended
> statistical information tells us that more than half of all voters met
> voting requirements on two or more projects.
> It's also noteworthy that the majority of Wikimedia projects have a very
> small group of contributors who would meet the voting requirements.Most
> editors who work on our smaller projects made their earliest contributions
> on a larger project, and that larger project is going to be considered
> their "home" wiki. SecurePoll treats an account's edits wholistically,
> rather than project-by-project, and it does not record the location
> (wiki/project) from which an account has voted. It should be noted that
> there isn't a lot of data provided with relation to our smaller projects in
> the statistical analysis. This is appropriate as it could impact user
> privacy.
> As an aside, I am part of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee team
> looking at using SecurePoll for some aspects of ratification of the
> Charter. We are already discussing with the team that is responsible for
> SecurePoll about some of these issues, such as users being able to select
> their "home wiki", results per project, expanding the available
> translations, and ways to maintain privacy for contributors to smaller
> projects. We're also watching closely for relevant comments specific to
> the use of SecurePoll in this and other elections, and what improvements
> Wikimedians (especially those from smaller projects) suggest for
> SecurePoll. Thanks, Xavier, for raising the issue.
> Risker/Anne
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 15:49, Stella Ng <> wrote:
>> Hello Xavier,
>> Thank you for your email, and sharing your observations and concerns.
>> Many other movement initiatives face similar challenges. Equitable
>> participation and engagement are something we are working to improve with
>> each and every interaction. The UCoC project team has poured a sizable
>> amount of discussion, planning and energy into outreach to the movement
>> throughout the process. The goal was to encourage participation from as
>> many communities as possible.
>> The ways the UCoC team encouraged participation can be seen through the
>> results of this work. The Revised Enforcement Guidelines are currently
>> translated into over 40 languages; voter information, banners, and emails
>> were also heavily translated. The project team hosted outreach and
>> conversation hours throughout the drafting process. We have made it a point
>> to invite and engage with many communities, particularly small and
>> medium-sized, and it is our goal to continue to ensure that the growing
>> communities and small language wikis are invited to engage with us. It is
>> our hope that as we progress, the UCoC and the Enforcement Guidelines will
>> create a better environment that will see more interaction from all
>> communities.
>> As we embark on the next steps and stages of this ongoing project, we
>> will increase engagement, conversations, and interaction with the growing
>> communities and small language wikis in as many languages, places, and
>> contexts as possible. The UCoC is an iterative process, and we will be
>> inviting opinions of how to make it more inclusive as we continue onwards.
>> Kind regards,
>> Stella Ng
>> On Behalf of the UCoC Project Team
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:39 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi/Bona vesprada,
>>> Without meaning at all that I do not respect the results of this voting,
>>> I would like to call the attention to the fact that out of 3097 votes,
>>> practically 2000 are circumscribed to only 4 big home wikis:
>>> (1000), (500), (200) and (150).
>>> Imho it is somehow concerning that 2/3 of the votes of such a key policy
>>> are heavily relying on the weight of those major projects. I understand the
>>> constraints in participation, but it isn't either a trivial value
>>> -considering how much do we read about the WMF efforts to promote the
>>> so-called “Global South” communities and the minority language wikis.
>>> There is a great essay on English Wikipedia, "Wikipedia:Silence does
>>> not imply consent when drafting new policies
>>> <>",
>>> that has a very thoughtful background and that I like very much to remind: *"Silence
>>> implies consensus" is an old standby on Wikipedia. However, with regard to
>>> new policies and guidelines, this cannot apply, and silence should instead
>>> imply either indifference or a lack of proper exposure. If a proposal
>>> produces indifference in the community, it is not necessary. If a proposal
>>> has not been adequately exposed to the community, there is no just cause
>>> for implementing it as policy.*
>>> Kind regards/Salutacions,
>>> Xavier Dengra
>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>> El dilluns, 13 de febrer 2023 a les 20:00, Shani Evenstein <
>>>> va escriure:
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>> *Today the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement
>>> Guidelines vote were tallied*. We are pleased to report the results
>>> show that the Enforcement Guidelines are strongly supported by the
>>> community, with *76% of participants voting in support *of the
>>> Enforcement Guidelines.
>>> A report with a summary and analysis of comments submitted in the voting
>>> process is being prepared by the staff members supporting the Universal
>>> Code of Conduct work and will be available soon.
>>> Below is a message created by the staff members supporting the Universal
>>> Code of Conduct work, which has translations available on Meta-wiki
>>> <>
>>> .
>>> The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised
>>> Enforcement Guidelines
>>> <>
>>> has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated.
>>> After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are
>>> 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition.
>>> Statistics
>>> <>
>>> for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted
>>> during the vote will be published soon.
>>> From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be
>>> submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current
>>> expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in
>>> March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed.
>>> I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated in
>>> this process.
>>> This list includes the people who voted in 2022 and those voters who
>>> provided comments so we could strengthen and clarify the Enforcement
>>> Guidelines into the version the community supports.
>>> I especially want to thank the Drafting Committee, who took the time to
>>> reconvene and review community feedback from the 2022 Enforcement Guideline
>>> vote and continue to engage with the community and feedback throughout
>>> 2022.
>>> Finally, thank you to the people who voted and shared feedback during
>>> this voting period. We look forward to reviewing the report of the feedback
>>> and discussing next steps with the rest of the Board.
>>> Shani, on behalf of the CAC.
>>> Shani Evenstein Sigalov
>>> <>
>>> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
>>> Chair, Community Affairs Committee
>>> Wikimedia Foundation <>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list --, guidelines
>>> at: and
>>> Public archives at
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list --, guidelines
>> at: and
>> Public archives at
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list --, guidelines
> at: and
> Public archives at
> To unsubscribe send an email to

'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'