Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The consultation has ended. Thank you for your participation! The consultation summary is now available.

Consultation page
Discussion page for Wikimedia Commons community

Policy text
The current policy text on Meta-Wiki

More on Meta-Wiki
OverviewHistory and timelineFAQ

The Universal Code of Conduct, often abbreviated as UCoC is a global policy initiative that aims to provide a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement without tolerance for any kind of harassment and abuse regardless of someone's background, involvement, and level of commitment. This is a set of fundamental principles that are necessary for a collaborative environment where everyone feels welcome and safe. The Commons community already practices similar policies like civility, assuming good faith, etc. However, UCoC will be a global policy that will take effect on all Wikimedia projects as an extension to the current Terms of Use.

How does this consultation work?

During this second phase of consultation, various facilitators (like me) are facilitating a consultation in several projects of several levels of maturity and engagement. This consultation is scheduled to go on till the end of February 2021. In this phase, we ask you to share your concerns regarding the implementation of the policy, especially how you want this to be implemented alongside Commons' existing policy and enforcement system. You can also provide feedback on the current draft, your expectations from UCoC. Let us know, based on your experience, what you feel is not working properly, and how you would like it to function.

How can you participate?

You can participate by expressing your opinion. There are several matters we like your opinion on. We already have a policy that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. As we are currently in the phase where we want to discuss the implementation of the policy, please let us know how you want this policy to be enforced in Wikimedia Commons. There are a few enforcement-related questions that you can outline your comments on. Please tell us, If there is a particular challenge regarding implementation and possible solution to it or any kind of resources needed to do so. Unlike many other communities, Commons is a very active community with a diverse set of users of various skills. It also has a good policy enforcement mechanism. Be bold and creative. You can always tell us what you feel about the draft. You can let us know if you would like the draft to be improved in certain ways.

Moreover, if you are a new member of the community, you are also very welcome to share your thoughts. Be bold. You do not have to worry about what you find relevant. Share your story on what you felt was not right and could be developed, and also your thoughts on what you find challenging.

We are perfectly aware that not everyone feels comfortable discussing certain issues in an open discussion, nor that everything can be discussed publicly. We are aware of it and that is why we are also offering you a nonpublic way to provide your input. You can drop me a message on my talk page or email me. Also, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions!

Is there participation opportunities for affiliates?

Of course. You are very welcome to participate if you are involved with any affiliates. We’ll approach affiliates for their experiences and opinions as well. However, you are still welcome and encouraged to share your personal thoughts.

Incoherence & bad grammar[edit]

I'm sorry, but looking at meta:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review, my first reaction is "grammatical disaster area." My second is "incoherent thoughts." In just the first paragraph:

  • Split infinitive! "to actively participate" should be "to participate actively"
  • "to reach" has no grammatical antecedent. "We believe in… to reach"??? "We believe in empowering people… [in order] to reach"?" And if the latter, not very coherent. "Empowering people" does not result directly in "reaching our vision." There is a missing step.
  • How is a community "accessible"? I have absolutely no idea what that can possibly mean.
  • For that matter "as diverse as possible": does that mean Nazis are welcome? Flat-earthers? Believers in iridology? Anti-vaxxers? Somehow, I doubt it. We want diversity, but not "as diverse as possible". Or does "as possible" mean "as possible, given that there are conflicting considerations"? Or are you saying the communities should be diverse from one another (e.g. differently structured, or something like that?), not that they should be composed of maximally diverse contributors? If so, it's even less clear: that reading didn't cross my mind until I read the next sentence, which talks about other things we want the communities to be.
  • "Safe" and "healthy" have moderately clear meanings here. "Positive" really does not. And a quick search shows me that the word never appears again in the draft, so the reader is left with no explanation even if they look for one.
  • Shouldn't "joins (and wants to join)" be "joins (or wants to join)"? It seems to me that we can presume that all who have joined wanted to do so.

With that much of a mess in one paragraph, I didn't read further. I do not believe this document is ready for general review. It's not as if the English-language Wikipedia (for example) lacks people who can write and edit. Were none of them pulled into helping write this? - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Probably need a note to keep feedback on the discussion page? -- (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC) []
@: if that is the intent, then the button above "Click here to express your opinion" should not open up a new section on this page. And if that was the intent, someone should feel free to move my comment appropriately, just please ping me so I know where it lands. - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC) []
@: , feedback is intended here on the main page, though I made the same mistake you did.
I largely agree with Jmabel that the proposal is too vague, but generally speaking 900+ communities that cam can barely agree on anything need vague working. Furthermore, "diversity" tends to be a buzzword that depends on whomever uses it, it's because almost everyone can agree that diversity is good, but what diversity is more different to express. For example on Wikimedia Commons I'd say that "diversity" would mean photographers, videographers, librarians, Etc. from all over the world with diverse interests (cars, paintings, history, Etc.). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Jmabel that text should be correct. But Commons is a multi-language-project so we are probably many that are not native English speakers. Therefore I think that one of the most important things when it is implemented on Commons is that everyone should remember and respect that Commons is multi-language.
I always try to write in English but Danish is my native language. So I will probably make mistakes when I write but I bet that more people will understand my "bad" English than my "good" Danish.
I suggest that whoever finds typos etc. in the draft should just fix it. If something does not make sense then it is of course fair to ask what the meaning is intented to be.
When the first comment on the draft is grammar etc. then I could fear that some non-native English speakers will stay away from the discussion because they do not want to make mistakes. I think that is sad. So I suggest the main focus is content. --MGA73 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It is not clear to me whether people are welcome to edit, since this is a more-or-less official document from the Foundation. Could someone clarify that?
  • Also: I can fix bad grammar or poorly constructed sentences, but I can't unilaterally fix ambiguous or vacuous statements in someone else's document. Just in that first paragraph, as indicated above:
    • What does that sentence with "to reach" actually mean? As I wrote above, it looks to me like fuzzy thinking with an unstated premise.
    • I cannot tell what they mean by "accessible" or "as diverse as possible" or "positive". These feel to me like pretty buzzwords papering over a lack of real thought, or a lack of real consensus.
The Romanians have an expression for this sort of writing: " cuvinte de lemn", "wooden words," more specifically for them the vacuous pronouncements that came from the Communist regime. I know most people read along through this sort of stuff and nod their heads and end up thinking falsely in the end that they've reached agreements. A large piece of my career has been precisely to learn how not to do that, which is a lot of how I've kept many, many software development projects well-defined and on-schedule.
Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi, Jmabel, thank you for your input on the draft, especially for pointing out the grammatical mistakes. I encourage you and all who are concerned about such stuff to discuss them on the draft talk page. This way it will be seen by the persons responsible for updating the draft.
However, in this part of the consultation we are mostly focused on how this policy can and should apply to the Commons community. As an experienced user, your insights on implementation is of great value. Therefore, I encourage you to go through the rest of the draft, and let us know how the community can implement and enforce it to make our dear workplace safer and joyful. :) Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]
  • User:Wikitanvir (WMF) is there any reason my points cannot be engaged right here? All but the first and last are about ambiguity or outright vacuity. I still can't tell what is being proposed. If you (plural you) want people to respond to a document, and you can't clarify the ambiguities, that means you haven't even really agreed among yourselves. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Asking Wikimedia Commons volunteers to comment, then telling them to make the same points again in another discussion off-project is not acceptable, I would recommend that fellow volunteers positively refuse the suggestion as if it happens it means that this page is not a meaningful consultation and we are wasting our time.
If feedback here needs to be repeated in other places, maybe an employee could spend their time doing it, or the WMF can pay us in, say, book vouchers, for our time feeding bureaucracy. -- (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[]
I think it's pretty good. I agree with Jmabel's last two points ("positive" is unclear / "or wants to join" is obviously the intention), but not the others. Diversity / accessibility are clear to me. I have no problem with Nazis or flat-earthers participating in commons projects, so long as they follow the rules (including this Code of Conduct). They might even learn something! And the other alleged grammatical issues don't affect my understanding of the text in the least. Most contemporary style guides don't find split infinitives objectionable unless they create confusion. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I didn't really have any problems understanding the text. I know what a "positive" environment is, i.e. an environment in which people are generally helpful rather than mean and aggressive. And I don't have any problem understanding the desire for a "diverse" and "accessible" community, i.e. a community of varying demographics that I can actually communicate with. The grammar problems are all minor and beside the point of this consultation. Kaldari (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Themightyquill: : if "diversity" and "accessibility" are clear to could you define them? Then we can run that past the authors of the document. I'd be very interested to know whether what you think is their "clear" meaning is actually what they meant. - Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Jmabel I think that "accessible community" means that there are no barriers to participation, in particular for people with disabilities. That can mean anything from wheelchair access at events to improvements to the website to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. I'm not so sure that there is much an individual contributor can do to make a community more accessible, or even how you could enforce it. We're not going to block people for writing bad HTML. Perhaps we can eliminate Captchas. Vexations (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I certainly am all for accessibility in that sense, but how is that a conduct issue? Just for people designing the software, people organizing meetings (that they should always be careful about what in the U.S. is called ADA compliance) and for admins (making appropriate allowances in terms of sanctions, etc.)
  • Little from me on the s/w front, I'm not active on that side of WMF's sites, but would this mean (for example) that we are concerned to have a way that (for example) illiterate people can usefully contribute? Not much of a concern in the First World, of course, but there are places where smartphone access is now more widespread than literacy.
  • On the "organizing meetings" front, which affects me personally, or will once people are able to be face-to-face again: does this mean that (for example) it would not be OK for Cascadia Wikimedians (the group I'm in) to use our most common meeting space, the upstairs meeting room at a coffeehouse (which requires using a staircase) and must meet in the general coffeehouse space even when that is really crowded & noisy, or find a different place for our meetings? Might our Board be in trouble with WMF if we fail to work out such an arrangement? Or am I extrapolating too far? Are we talking about the sort of "accessibility" rules where it is simply not acceptable to meet in such a space, or the sort where we need to provide reasonable alternatives (e.g. would Zoom access to the meetings for virtual attendance allow us to continue to meet in a centrally located place that costs us nothing and is happy to have us)?
  • On the admin front: does this mean, for example, that when we see a user who will not or cannot behave in a socially appropriate manner, we need to determine somehow whether this is because of something on the autism spectrum, mental illness, or just plain (to put it bluntly) being a dick, and somehow work out how to accommodate the first two, while reserving blocks and disciplinary actions only for the third? How on earth are admins supposed to make that determination? I see some admins who already have trouble making a fair determination as to whether a given user's behavior is appropriate, especially when they are in conflict with that user. Or, again, am I extrapolating too far?
  • In short, after this has been kicked around for years: where is the substance? Where is the clarity even on what decisions we will need to make? This just looks to me like a bunch of, well, as I said sbove, " cuvinte de lemn", "wooden words."
FWIW, I do agree the wording could be improved. Kaldari (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

(separated out as new topic)[edit]

The real problem here is the absence of good control from the foundation. Policy at Commons and Wikipedia should be compatible with each other, it should be in common. The old perennial arguments come directly from that. It should not be for the community to discuss and agree on capitalisation of titles. Where and when to use British or American English. The use, or not, of the definite article. Back when the project began, some opiniated amateurs got to together and made arbitrary decisions that we all have to live with, whether they are right or wrong. The hottest topics are where they got it wrong, with short sighted, or poorly drafted policy. Example: People contribute to the English language Wikipedia in every possible variety and dialect of formal written English. ... The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. Nothing said there about French, German, South American topics??? Despite German schools using British spelling, we can use American; right there source for confusion and argument, very often abusive.
Using capitals in titles is the norm in English, we admit that on one hand, and then proceed to do the opposite.
On the subject of grammar, an encyclopaedia should be an exemplar of the language, yes, articles should be corrected. Again, where it gets brutal and stupid, is where ambiguities in the policy (as described) leave it open for abuse. Broichmore (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Broichmore: I have no idea why you didn't start a new section for this. It seems way off topic of anything I (or anyone else) wrote above. It also seems unrelated to the Code of Conduct.
  • That said, since you apparently wrote this in some sort of response to my remarks:
    • I absolutely oppose the Foundation trying to impose editorial decisions on individual projects. I think it is entirely good that (for example) Commons, Wikidata, and the various Wikipedias are largely independent of each other. Efforts to coordinate even voluntarily between Commons and Wikidata have driven away many good contributors. I shudder to think how many would leave over having those decisions imposed from above by people who do not participate in either project.
    • I have no idea why you think that the way English is taught in German schools should mean that (for example) an American writing about Germany should write in UK English simply because that is more familiar to (academically-oriented) Germans (and completely unnatural for the writer). - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel: Please feel free to make it a new topic, if you wish. I merely put it in as example of the sticks and stones that some use to browbeat other users, in a completely legal way; and the reason why.
What are you saying. It's a rhetorical question. We should change the existing policy so I can write British English in any post Webster American article, or more pertinently a Puerto Rican article because its unnatural to me. You would be the first to change it.
I don't know why we could not confine policy making to rules of engagement, and proper respect. Why did we have to stray into rules (where we have no business to be) on grammar for so called style reasons. The public sees us as one unit, they don't understand why commons labels a ship (date-wise) differently than Wikipedia. It just confuses the issue. As I said, already, over regulation and poorly drafted rules, breed confusion and argument. Rules of engagement and arbitration are universal at the end of the day. Broichmore (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I didn't bring up grammar as a conduct issue. My complaint was the document we are being asked to comment on is incoherent and has bad grammar, both of which I would have expected to be addressed before coming to the community. The grammar issue is, of course, secondary to the incoherence, but both show the shoddy work this has received after so much investment. - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel: Point taken. 22:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]
I never expected the board to approve a text that has so many obvious flaws. I'm not even talking about grammar; we're unable to spell words consistely in the same paragraph: "3 Unacceptable behavior The Universal Code of Conduct aims to help community members identify situations of bad behaviour." We have excellent copy editors, who have been locked out of improving the text by the WMFs refusal to let us edit the text. Failing that, they should have hired a professional editor. Vexations (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Being listened to and volunteer exhaustion[edit]

In a meeting this week, I supported T&S in the idea of the UCoC and I expressed my sympathy with the forthcoming debates and difficulty in doing something about the implementation.

Just as with many of our long term volunteers, I gave feedback early on. Today it feels like the discussion has been going on for years, and I'm too tired to search out those past discussions to say the same things again, as if they were shouted into the vacuum of space.

The UCoC will be unable to override local policies. Consequently the long term article on the Chinese Wikipedia that promotes eugenics myths about "race" and the genetic inferiority of non-Chinese peoples will not be corrected because of a UCoC existing, nor will openly bigoted, alt-right extremists, or anti-LGBT+ editors, that are so supported and emboldened that they have statements, flags or userboxes on their user pages that say precisely this, be asked to leave the projects, nor will they even be required to remove their bigotry because "free speech". I am, of course, thinking of non-English Wikipedia projects that have these challenges, where we know that often a central core of sysops may believe in exactly the same bigoted myths.
* (Technical note) the reason that is relevant to a Commons discussion, is Commons is precisely why I know about the existence of these eugenics problems in multiple projects. Commons hosts the maps, charts and historical images that are used and misused on these articles. In some cases they have been uploaded by lobbyist sockpuppets and inserted into multiple Wikipedias on the same day. It's virtually impossible to get these deleted from Commons, even when they are user created works of fiction, created to promote myths and misinformation. Simply blocking the sockpuppets is not enough, in some cases even the sock accounts made these changes years before detection. Will the UCoC resolve these problems? No, of course not, yet it is precisely non-encyclopaedic and often hostile misinformation that is "intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person" per the draft UCoC.

The WMF will be vulnerable to Section 230 in US law, that's understandable. However at some point the WMF has to either delete or meet the fine words in their value statements and fundraising statements. Without this, the tensions between the WMF and core volunteers who are part of minority groups will remain, and may grow more vocal and visible to the public eye in the coming years.

These views are not only mine, nor are they exceptional, but I'm probably more free to speak up after years of death threats and enough targeted harassment related to our LGBT+ projects that I expect it every day I contribute. It would be nice to aim for a future where this is not our volunteers' reward for contributing to the public good of free access to the sum of human knowledge which should include factual and helpful information about minority groups as well as majority ones, not just about (checks notes about past WMF CEO statements) "hairdressing", "fashion" or "boobies".

Thanks -- (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi , thank you for your insights (specially from non-English perspectives) and supporting the UCoC initiative. I think your example of Chinese Wikipedia is an interesting point for obstacle enforcing UCoC on a project. But I beg to differ on your statement about UCoC being unable to override local policies. Of course, we need to find out how UCoC and local policies can and should interact between them. There could be different definitions of harassment or inappropriate behavior in existence based on cultural differences. We certainly need to work on that to find enforcement pathways which can be different based on projects. At the same time, we also need to think about situations like in case local policy of a project is not up to the standard of UCoC or if it is, then what to do if it is not being enforced? Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[]


I can have no confidence in any such initiative as this as long as WMF T&S refuse to take meaningful action against a Wikipedia editor who maintains a website harassing myself, a Commoner. Either "off-wiki harassment" has some meaning or it does not. Accordingly, I reject the invitation to participate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Rodhullandemu that is a fair and valid choise. But if you participate you have a chance to perhaps make off-wiki herassment a part of the new code of cunduct. --MGA73 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]
I received an email from T&S on 11th January which made it plain that they regard "on- or off-wiki" conduct as actionable. If they really mean that, they should be prepared to be even-handed about it. Thus far I see no evidence of that, nor that they realise that harassment is a course of conduct and not one email. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Rodhullandemu, thank you for your comment. The issue you raised — “off-wiki harassment” is an important part of this consultation. UCoC is the first step of recognizing these issues seriously. It has many areas and scope of taking actions. I do not know about the case you are referring to, but as MGA73 pointed above, your participation is particularly important now to address them and find a way to enforce UCoC on that matter. Therefore, I encourage you not to lose hope. I can promise you to convey your input so it will be heard. Just a note: if you are not comfortable discussing it public, you can always email me. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Have sent you an email. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, Rodhullandemu. I've got your email. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wikitanvir (WMF): The silence is deafening. Can it take so long for T&S to clarify whether or not a website created by one Wikimedian seriously libelling another is acceptable and if so, why it is? You either take all off-Wiki harassment seriously, or none of it, and so far all I'm seeing is inconsistency. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wikitanvir (WMF): The impression I'm getting here is that I've hit the "too difficult" or "don't care" wall. It really is a serious issue, not least because of the legal implications for the Wikimedia Foundation. When I was a lawyer, I was the go to guy for "too difficult". When I was a software engineer, I was the go to guy for "too difficult". When I was a mobile phone fraud investigator, I was the go to guy for "too difficult". But I never ignored reasonable requests for clarification or investigation. It's a simple issue: a Wikimedian runs a website libelling me, another Wikimedian. Why is that not covered by the protections for vulnerable users afforded by the UCoC? Please pass this to your "too difficult" person, if you have one. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Considered response[edit]

  • Today I have walked about ten miles and taken over 180 photographs useful to Commons, and Wikipedia, if I were able to improve Wikipedia. I am currently not able to do so. You would think that Wikipedia would want to be as good as it could possibly be, but apparently not. They are prepared to suffer low-quality images and not commit to improving quality, when it's offered for free. It's tiring. However, that's a side issue in this context. There is a major problem with the whole premise of this initiative, because of the use of the words "universal" and "global". WMF is an umbrella organisation, but its constituent parts are vastly culturally diverse. To attempt to reduce this to a "one size fits all" set of rules is a foolish enterprise, because it ignores that diversity. That may be racist; I'm not qualified to judge. But a truly global standard is bound to be so weak that it will leave gaps. What may be an insult or personal attack on one language Wikipedia may be perceived as "banter" in another. That's why this issue should be left to local Wikpedias and not be imposed "from above". As far as my 13 years experience goes, attempts by WMF to override local government have been resentfully resisted,and IMO, rightly so. Framgate?
  • If any code of conduct is to have any meaning, it should include protection of those who are falsely accused of horrible things and have suffered as a result, which includes those whose mental health has suffered. Consider this: If some editor on any Wikimedia project called me a murderer, they would be permanently blocked under whatever local "No Personal Attacks" policy applied. Even if it were true, because it would have no relevance in the slightest to my contributions to that local project. Now if some Wikimedian did so on some external website, to be even-handed, that person should also be kicked off every single Wikimedia project, with extreme prejudice. We don't do nasty, neither should we tolerate it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Dear WMF staff, please advice me what can I do in my situation:

1. I have two personal bullies here on Commons, they have been harassing and bashing me for years for reasons known only to them.
2. I had already emailed several times to WMF T&S complaining about one of them.
3. On WMF T&S, they agree with me that his behaviour is problematic, but claim that there is nothing WMF T&S can do about it, as long as there is functioning community on Commons, so I should try COM:ANU and other dispute-resolving sites on Commons instead.
4. Every time I try to state something on COM:ANU, the only effect is more toxic comments and harassment I have to face from that two users.

Wikitanvir (WMF) or whoever feels responsible, can you advice me how to escape from this vicious circle? Thanks. --A.Savin 12:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @A.Savin: This doesn't seem to be the place to raise particular cases, but since you did: I know we have been in conflict lately. Am I one of your "bullies"? If so, you haven't brought a complaint against me at COM:ANU. I believe we already had an exchange on this and I told you that I would be willing to let you bring it there and would even agree not to comment there myself on the relevant thread if that is what you need. That offer still stands. I say here, though, I do not believe I've seen you treated unfairly on other matters on ANU. When they've determined that you are in the wrong, it appears to me to have been because you were in the wrong. Not every complaint is going to be decided in your favor, and presumably nothing in this proposed policy is going to change that.
  • That said, yes there needs to be more of a working process at WMF for people who believe they are being harassed and that they are not getting justice on an individual wiki. I've been dealing with one lately about someone who feels they are being hounded off of zh-wiki over bias against people who are not absolutely neurotypical, and they seem to have nowhere to take that. Yes, any such mechanism will get more false alarms than accurate reports, but it needs to be there. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    Wrong, didn't mean you. --A.Savin 01:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Victimization will not exempt you from facing your questionable acts as an administrator. Almost every one said to you not to use warning templates neither nor threaten blocking experienced users you disagree with, however you continue again and again, and sometimes against the same users. Is, that telling you this is not an appropriate behavior for an administrator, an intimidation? maybe sometimes I am clumsy in the form but the substance is well here. It is not about you and me, you forget easily that every time that I intervened there was also and in the first place one of your victims, the users unfairly threatened with blocking or unfairly victim of your communication errors with your use of warning templates. At this point of bad faith on your part the community would be doing you a favor by removing your administrator status, it would be for your own good, because apparently you are unable not to put yourself in difficult situations that put you under pressure. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    • And to answer the question "how to escape from this vicious circle?" maybe you could try to stop threatening to block all the users you have a conflict. And maybe you could save your fellow administrators from having to close every 2, 3 or 6 months, in the various adm. noticeboards, topics in which everyone agrees that you have some responsibility for the escalation of the conflicts. The last time I talked to you that was 6 months ago asking if we could "wait one entire year...", and I came back 6 month later because the answer have been no. Do I think I will have to do it again? yes and this is why I think you should not be administrator, but it is up to you to show that I'm wrong. Will I do that again? that depends on you, if I think you are unfairly threatening or intimidating other users with blocking threats and templates, the answer is yes I will continue. If you stop that behavior, you will no have to deal with me. Will you continue that behavior just to prove that you can do it despite the fact that I asking you not to do so? please don't do that Alexander, or you will hurt yourself more than me. I think that is a quite clear answer to your question. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (of course I speak on my own behalf and not on behalf of other people with whom you potentially have disagreements)[]

@Wikitanvir (WMF): I am disappointed that you didn't deem necessary to response on it, and unwatchlisting this page now. You still may go to my talk page or send email, in case you have any questions. --A.Savin 12:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Wikitanvir (WMF) and A.Savin: Trying to read between the lines here, but it may be that the "(WMF)" in Wikitanvir's sig may have misled you into thinking that he is actually a WMF staffer, with some actual influence- actually he may be just a contractor brought in to do a particular job, and although he can comment on issues outside his remit, WMF could just turn round and say, "meh". He won't necessarily care, he will fulfil his contract and then move on to something more worthwhile. And those who should care, WMF T&S, will just go "not our problem", and as usual bury the difficult problems in the sand, because, after all, they're not in the business of protecting vulnerable members of the Wikimedia community, just appearing to do so by ticking some boxes. Forgive me if I find it difficult to type through tears, because I have a Fleetwood Mac concert going on. Meanwhile, as long as I can, I will risk my health by going on long walks taking good quality photographs of things that really should be on Commons, Wikipedia and Wikidata. If you don't want your projects to be as good as they could be, that is not my problem. My problem at present is my liver, lungs and heart, any one of which may conk out at any moment. My recommendation is to take advantage while you can. Like angels' visits, we are "few and far between". Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@A.Savin: , sorry for the late response. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of your case or report to T&S and cannot solve your issue as that is out of my work scope. But I do believe you have brought some good challenges for UCoC enforcement. As you've said you've reached to ANU, and then WMF T&S, and that didn't solve your issue. We have a few enforcement questions here. 1) What to do when someone's issue isn't or can't be solved through ANU? 2) How can WMF T&S effectively act and help to solve the issue that came past ANU? 3) How we can ensure anyone doesn't get more toxic comments when they request help on ANU? Should there be a private reporting and discussion system? If yes, who should be there? 4) How do we avoid COI in that committee? or should there be a global committee to appeal? If you could give your opinion to solve those challenges, I think we can design a system that will help overcome these issues more effectively. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wikitanvir (WMF): What do you mean by "caning" a comment ("doesn't cane more toxic comments")? Jargon word I don't know, or typo where I can't work out what letter(s) to change? - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Jmabel, thanks for noticing. That was a typo -- a wiered one though. I meant "get". I fixed it now. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Personal notes from GMG[edit]

  • I really think that "don't be a jerk" covers things. But I'm old and crusty and dislike over legislation. So take that for what it's worth.
  • I have no intention of using neologistic gender pronouns. I will use normal English. I generally use the gender neutral "they", unless I've met someone IRL or spent time with them on video. I will continue to do so.
  • "gratuitous legal action" is silly. The threat of legal action need not be gratuitous. It simply needs be.
  • As I believe I've said before, I do not favor an intent standard. It may work out in court, but it does not work out well on the internet in an anonymous or pseudo-anonymous context.
  • I would recommend doing a read over and bringing down the reading level overall. I struggle to imagine an example where something like "decontextualized" cannot be restated in plain language.

GMGtalk 18:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]

I think a simple code of conduct would be better as well. We could use the No Code of Conduct, then adjust it to Wikimedia's needs (like change "adult" to "matured people"). pandakekok9 07:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I agree with GreenMeansGo that "don't be a jerk" would be more succinct and to the point, and if nothing else ought to be the "nutshell" statement here. I don't envy what that would require of the various translators, though. Just sticking to Spanish, the one other language I really speak, ¿No seas pendejo? ¿No seas cabrón?. The only thing I can think of that is less obscene - No seas idiota - is also more insulting and less precise.
    • I agree also on the sesquipedilianism (look it up).
    • "neologistic": English evolveth. Prithee, wouldst thou that we were to address one another thusly? (And I bet something in that sentence sounded neologistic in 1600.)
Jmabel ! talk 16:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel: Yes, I am aware that we do not write in Shakespearian verse. Language should be used however communicates most clearly. Like any good person with an opinion on style, I often break my own rules. I often have to catch myself and remind myself that when I'm on Meta, Data, or here, my audience is probably a lot of people who speak English as a second language. Don't use syllables you don't need.
My only real stance on non-standard gender pronouns is that they are not standard English. They are difficult to use, to track, and to understand, especially on a multi-lingual project, where it's not at all going to be clear whether someone is using non-standard English, or a language other than English. We should all make a good faith effort to treat others with respect. As I said, don't be a jerk. But I have no intention of checking with every single user to ensure that I'm referring to them with their preferred word that isn't in the dictionary. I will call you they or them. That's the purpose of a gender neutral personal pronoun. It's gender neutral. GMGtalk 12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, but definitely not a neologism (two uses cited there predate Chaucer, and while that link doesn't say this, Ruskin in the Victorian era used it routinely), just becoming more common recently. - Jmabel ! talk 13:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm referring more to things like xe, ze, sie, co, and ey, as replacements for he or she. The singular they is quite intuitive, and even in spoken language would be readily understood by the listener as a "rule breaking" gender neutral singular personal pronoun. GMGtalk 13:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah, sorry I misunderstood. Yes, we are in total agreement. - Jmabel ! talk 13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[]
An unmentioned risk of wikt:sesquipedalianism is wikt:sesquipedilianism, aka fauteorthographiqualitarianism. Boud (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Boud: I'm actually rather unperturbed that I didn't know how to spell that offhand, but thank you for shaming me publicly rather than saying something privately. Very collegial. - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel: When someone says this sort of comment, I'm never quite sure if it's meant seriously or meant tongue-in-cheek. In the WMF wikis, all of our spelling mistakes are permanently on the record, including mine. I do know that one public academic online forum died because many participants were worried about the risk of being publicly embarrassed about mistakes more significant than spelling mistakes, illustrating a lack of understanding or lack of "academic excellence", staying in the public record with easy-to-find responses. Boud (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Boud: Which still doesn't really commit to which of the two ways you meant it. Since I've never interacted with you, I haven't a clue. May I suggest that something like this is a lot less of a call-out, including that I didn't publicly put in the permanent record whose spelling I was correcting, and that I actually corrected the misspelling? Yes, it's still there in the record, no it's not being thrust in people's faces.
I'd rather not have to look up every word I use. It does happen that this is my native language, but I'm using at least three others routinely on here, and of course I am not perfect at all times in all of them. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel: My correction was intended as a friendly correction. My made-up word at the end of the sentence was meant to be the equivalent of a smiley, illustrating the use of words that are much too long and complicated for presenting a simple meaning. :) I've never heard, until now, of someone correcting another user's spelling errors in place on a talk page, since the general practice and guidelines I've seen are that only extremely minimal interventions, such as inserting missing indentation to clarify the thread of a conversation, are considered acceptable interventions in another user's comments (though your edit summary clearly shows your good faith). Apparently you've done this and nobody felt upset. So I guess we can agree to disagree on the appropriate way of notifying someone of a spelling error on a talk page. :). I certianly mkae spelilng miskates two. Boud (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Old is never a reason to disrespect gender pronouns. If anyone wants to avoid being a deliberate jerk, they can take a moment to avoid pronouns altogether because it's really pretty easy in English. Honestly nobody can keep track of who claims to be what gender, so it's simpler to just think of editing accounts, volunteers and editors, none of which needs to have gender honorifics.
There are plenty of self confessed anti-SJW lobbyists (bigots) on our projects, it would be super to slap a few of them with the reality that being civil includes respecting gender pronouns and doing the opposite of that, shall lead to you ceasing to be here, even if your "anti" views happen to be the majority views on your home project. If that's part of the UCoC implementation, it's a benefit to everyone. -- (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@GreenMeansGo: Respecting gender pronouns means you call trans women "she", trans men "he", and non-binary people "they". Nothing else is realistically expected. Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm fairly settled in, and I'm just going to continue to use "they". There little reason on any project where I should need to know or care what someone's sexual orientation or gender identity is. Somewhat less so in that the Foundation doesn't seem to bother in any way that might actually matter. For instance two years ago when I was sitting in Boston in the LGBT meeting, and suggested that in all our preoccupation with the underrepresentation of women, we might also be concerned with whether gay topics were being written with a gay pen. What is the level of representation of gay editors? We don't know, and we aren't looking, because we don't care. GMGtalk 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Basic enforcement questions[edit]

Hi all, to help you engage more, I have posted a few basic questions regarding UCoC enforcement in Wikimedia Commons. I hope this would help all of you to think and shape your opinion. Please be bold and participate. If you have already participated, you can also have your say what you think about the situations expressed through those questions. You are encouraged to bring up other aspects as well. Happy commenting! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[]

That link returns here. Where are the questions, please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Rodhullandemu, It's on the top right of the page (see the yellow text box far right to the TOC, under the intro). There are 6 questions. I hope you found them. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Found them. I don't mean to be critical but my initial impression is that those questions are impossibly vague, interlinked, and hence diffuse as they stand. I don;t see how it's possible to give a coherent response to any one of them. Sorry, I'm tired right now but will take a fresh look tomorrow, if there is a tomorrow. @Fae: , you're good at this sort of thing. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[]
These are indeed impossible questions and any answer cannot include a solution, at least none has been put in place over the last 20 years.
The questions such as false allegations relate to "truth" which Commons policies for blocks and sysop actions do not address as in any serious case this required off-wiki discussion. I guess real answers bounce them back by saying that Commons policies do not protect users from serious abuse or harassment, and never will.
Better responses might include the WMF positively and promptly cooperating with (non-USA) police and lawyers, rather than deliberately using the 90-day rule and needing a court action in California, before supplying legally meaningful records so an abuser might actually be prosecuted for their crime. At the end of the day, blocking some anonymous sock accounts, does not protect or support our users from death threats, threats against their families or being forever doxxed off-wiki. The current apparent WMF approach of caveat emptor for volunteers that foolishly create an account on our projects, is legally great for the WMF, but provides not even a fig leaf for those of us that get targeted. -- (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]
I had no idea that Californian presence is a must in these cases :-o Zblace (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[]

My view on the 6 questions[edit]

1. What is the best way to arbitrate in cases that involves vulnerable people, serious harassment, and threats against contributors? I think that in most cases reporting cases on COM:AN/UP is the best way. If it is a clear case then it is easy for admins to give a warning or block the guilty. If admins find that the complaint is wrong then admins can close the case. The problem is that we are all volunteers so if it is not a clear case then we can not spend thousands of hours to evaluate to find the most fair judgement. There will be cases where users are blocked unfair and other cases where bad users are allowed to continue. I see no solution where we can make it 100 % fair for everyone.

2. How can we create better reporting pathways for users who are targets of harassment? I think COM:AN/UP is okay in most cases. If the harassment is off wiki and it is sensitive then reports can be made via COM:OTRS. To be honest I do not know where to send the report. We could perhaps add an e-mail-address on COM:AN/UP for those cases, so users know where to report.

3. Do you think peer support networks help to support users who are targets of harassment? I doubt it will help. If admins can’t find a fair solution then I wonder what a support network can do. If WMF will hire professional experts in conflict management then yes. If anyone want to volunteer they can go to COM:AN/UP and help without being a part of a support network.

4. What are the challenges for contributors who provide support affected users and what are needed to overcome these challenges? I do not understand the question. But generally one challenge is that in most cases there is not 100 % right or 100 % wrong. And if you support A you may hurt B and there are probably no way to make everyone happy. So if you get involved you may make enemies.

5. How can Wikimedia Commons protect users against false allegations? I think we should make as much as possible in a public place like COM:AN/UP. We have to insist that users are innocent unless otherwise proven. So if A want to complaint about B then A have to provide good reasons and proof.

6. How do we deal with incidents that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them? I think that this is the most difficult kind of cases. If A and B is a couple and break up and really hate each other. Then it is really hard for admins on Commons to judge who is right and who is wrong because the proof is not on Commons. Also it is hard to determine if A and B fight because of a wiki project or if it is because of their personal relations.

On Commons we have long said that we judge users on what they do on Commons. So if A upload copyvios on xx.wikipedia and vandalize hundred of pages on xx.wikipedia then it is not a reason for a block on Commons (probably because most admins can't even understand the language on and each wiki may have its own norms). I think the same apply for off-wiki herrassment so admins on Commons will probably in most cases try to stay out of such conflicts. So if A complain about B because B had sex with C then it is something A and B (and C) will have to deal with on their own.

But if A upload a photo and B uses it off wiki and there is a dispute between them about license terms then it could be relevant for admins to check if A is a copyright troll or not (en:Copyright troll). --MGA73 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]

In short, I think you're saying that local projects are best equipped to judge local issues. That has got be right; they are aware of their local values. Do I trust some Texas A&M graduate to judge my cultural values? Hell no, because s/he wouldn't trust mine. Simple as that. Horses for courses, as they say. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]
You could say it like that Rodhullandemu. For example in Denmark we have a hand sign for “Ok” or “Thank you” but in Germany Ive been told the same sign means “asshole”. I Can imagine there are many Examples of things that users understand differently.

partial input[edit]

2. How can we create better reporting pathways for users who are targets of harassment?

Think MediaWiki UI/UX need to be developed to make sure that everyone is aware that reporting is an option and channels are part of it so that it does not depend on project's language and experience of user.

3. Do you think peer support networks help to support users who are targets of harassment?

Only somewhat and only somewhere...for sure not in most small and medium sized projects.

6. How do we deal with incidents that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them?

This is tricky but should not be avoided. Establishing legal presence (maybe shared or via partner proxy NGOs) might be of use both for this and other issues. WMF needs to get out of its bubble and collaborate with FSF, CreativeCommons and other non-profits with similar ethos at the ground level.

Zblace (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Z, Thanks for your partial input on some of the valuable points. By MediaWiki development do you mean an interface developed for reporting only where those interface messages will be translated to different language through translate wiki and people will see them and instantly understand the function in the language of their choice (as set in their Preferences for example)? As you're not sure the support network might not help for small and mid-sized projects (and I understand why), what would think work? Something like global a committee with people who are experienced dealing small and mid-sized wiki issues? And I thank you for your ideas on dealing with off-wiki harassments.
Some of these questions and some others are in the survey we're running now. You may wish to take that. It's not a long survey at all. Thanks! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for appreciating the input and specifically ideas.
Yes I think infrastructure of support needs to be built-in into interface and in all languages that way, rather then hope for people to notice and read something. When you are stressed you just need to find a way to notify of need for help.
I am terrible with time and can not offer much more for now, but if I get more precise idea or you need more precise feedback I am sure there will be a way. Zblace (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Not all wiki communities are alike[edit]

A point made couple of times above, but that bears repeating: some communities in the WMF orbit are already pretty capable of handling conduct matters well, at least for on-wiki matters. It is unlikely that anything more centralized will do it better. Others, especially smaller ones, need centralized support. We might think of this like the Spanish healthcare system, where the autonomous communities can take it on for themselves or say "We aren't ready to do this, let the central government handle it in this part of Spain." - Jmabel ! talk 04:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[]

This is a valid point, however, I doubt that Commons belongs to such communities. Unfortunately we have a solid track record of creating project-wide problems out of nowhere and then being unable to solve them in a meaningful way.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Attempting the questions[edit]

I shall try to answer the questions from my personal point of view.

1. Choosing the "best way" is difficult to say and of course, depends largely on the context. But for a cleaner movement, these unfortunate events have to be dealt with firmness. Whoever the contributor is, if found to be being a threat against the contributors directly or indirectly, the movement will be happy to continue without that person. But before that, proper investigations and hearing from both ends are necessary. I think the communities are doing this for a long time, but the current infrastructure will allow them a certain path to follow, which I believe.

2. That's the most important thing and of which I am personally concerned. The newcomers are vulnerable to various forms of harassment or threats, and they should have the idea that they can seek help and get their concerns addressed. The welcome message can contain a link to report harassment, and more offline programs (I know, not feasible now, then online) should be organized to give a more concrete view of appropriate and inappropriate things to the community members. My intention is not to say they don't know, but often some of them don't care to follow. I hope that UCoC shall be helpful to act rightly there.

3 & 4. If the patrollers or other members find something inappropriate happening to someone, they should (be encouraged to) act on behalf of the people facing the inappropriate situation. If it's about newcomers, then the assistance from experienced ones is even more important. But at the same time, can UCoC protect those users helping the peers? Since the UCoC is something really new (and an essential part), the existing support WMF already has should also be strengthened more. It may sound a bit irrelevant here, but the situations created on top of the new policy should also be a part of the concern. I would be happy to know if anything such is considered or not. Helpful peers can even face threats and that can lead to some more unfortunate and tough situations for them. They also need quick action to protect themselves.

5. I haven't been part of any such situation in commons, so I shall be leaving this question to other members.

6. Incidents connected to Wiki projects can be a tough area to work on but yes, should be a part of the broader movement. If the created situation is connected to something on Wiki (maybe from a personal grudge), then it should also be acted upon. If a contributor harasses someone due to their previous connection to the wiki, then the situation is the same. But if otherwise, sadly I don't think it is possible to do something.

I hope that was germane to the discussion! Thanks. — ANKAN (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

I agree that T&S should hold "proper investigations and hearing from both ends". You won;t know this but so far they have not done this in my particular case. They need a course in the principles of natural justice. That's why their actions against me have been unlawful, and are null and void. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Back in 2019, I was the target of a blatantly false accusation which was taken as granted without any kind of investigation by T&S, and acted upon with a concrete punishment. I only knew about that after everything was already done, and the punishment was already on place, and apparently irreversible, even if it was completely out of proper process and based on something blatantly false, and very easy to prove as such. I never received any explanation on why that happened, why all the supposed system of checks and balances of WMF completely failed there. It is very sad to say this, but T&S is not (was not?) trustable nor safe, and people should never take the word of T&S as granted without proper evidence backing it up.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I thought I was alone in that regard. It seems not, and my complaint is much worse, the abuse having persisted online since at least March 26th 2014- nearly seven years. It's in the Wayback Machine. Once you refuse to take action against allegations of abuse of one Wikimedian by another, wherever it occurs, beyond "leaving a note on the file", you forfeit any claim to be protecting vulnerable members of your community. And once you start to act without due process, you not only appear to be autocratic but also incompetent of the basic principles of adjudication. No information as to allegations made, nor sight of any evidence against you, and no right of reply. Any one of these would result in any legal or administrative process being quashed without question, and the perpetrator mulcted in costs. T&S need legal advice, and not from Rudy Giuliani. I agree that I can't trust T&S to safeguard me within Wikmedia or elsewhere, having lost any moral authority they might have once had. Being a clinically extremely vulnerable person, I had my accelerated COVID jab this morning, but I now have a backlog of 300 photographs to process and upload from last week. So I make take some time to respond. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • +1 to proper investigations and natural justice. Those volunteers that have been hung out to dry by WMF T&S do not get fair access to the records, reports or analysis that T&S are using to make judgements. Those volunteers are granted no expectation of natural justice. Those volunteers do not even get the benefit of an advocate. In implementing a UCoC, as has been spelt out in capital letters before, these principles should ethically apply to the WMF as much as they apply to unpaid volunteers who the WMF (or their carefully selected "friends") are choosing to sit in judgement over. -- (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Personal harassment[edit]

As I experienced over a year, found that personal harassment is become intolerance. Mostly starts with 'EditWar' and ends to personal harassment, even threats. It's all about 'point of interest' conflict, which may starts after a deletion of articles on wiki or images on commons. Here I am not sure, but peer support networks may help to support users who are targets of harassment. Only WMF professionals can manage that conflict, otherwise seeking volunteer is a slow process. But what about the "off-wiki harassment" (such as personal mailing, phone call, social media harassment), no idea yet! I couldn't find any way where to report. ~Moheen (keep talking) 11:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Moheen: I wouldn't hold your breath on any meaningful action by the Foundation on off-wiki harassment since it seems that currently they are unable or unwilling to even define it. It seems that even the vilest abuse attracts only "a note on someone's file" and you may find yourself on your own. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
If someone is threatening you by phone, report it to the police, don't mess around waiting for WMF legal, their primary objective is to protect the WMF, not you. If you are targeted by death threats or anything of similar seriousness, in the UK talking to the charity victim support can be helpful even if you don't want to report a crime officially. -- (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I second Fae. Local police is definitely the way to go, and that's the way I have been using myself. Also, if the opportunity appears, getting in the open revealing the menaces and the abuser to the press may be an option. It is always advisable to inform WMF legal about the threats, if not for anything else, to avoid the abuser trying to pass as victim on their eyes, forcing you to deal with Legal at the same time you're dealing with the harasser, but don't hold your breath waiting for any relevant action on their part.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Being realistic, the police {certainly where I live} aren't that clued up about anything Wiki. They have, perhaps, begun to understand Facebook and Twitter. Ao reporting anything on Wiki to them is yet another hill they have to climb. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
In the case the harassment was off-wiki, and was not even directed at me, but at my family (which is worse :\ )-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]

What is the ultimate goal?[edit]

What is the ultimate goal? This may seem like a stupid question but that is actually something that is something that has to be thought of, in two (2) decades the 900+ Wikimedia websites have all developed their own cultures, own styles, own rules, Etc. Harassment is not something that should be accepted anywhere, but what constitutes "harassment", "bullying", "trolling", "disruption", "disharmony", Etc. vary widely by project. For example with the Simple English Wikipedia having very strict rules and strict policies compared to Wikiversity's infinite well of patience. This is a feature and not a bug, I may not be a fan of each culture but the polygenic nature of Wikimedia websites is what helps every separate website succeed, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) often seems to operate with what can best be described as "a two (2) Wiki perspective" caring only for the English-language Wikipedia and the Meta-Wiki, global bans based on the judgements of the Turkish Wikisource and Turkish-language Wikisource can remove a prolific contributor from Wikimedia Commons and the Kurdish-language Wikipedia. The system is already used in a way that it places way too much power in a handful of individuals over letting the communities decide for themselves, combine this with the general low engagement of most of the community with the Wikimedia Foundation and the WMF becomes some sort of absentee landlord, rather than a force for helping the community like Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) is on Wikidata and the MediaWiki software wiki.

Why I bring this up is because enforcement for slights on one project will always see unfair for another. What ClassicCardinal did on Wikimedia Commons was unacceptable, but on the French-language Wiktionary they were a beloved contributor. What these rules might entail is more enforcement and less possibilities to appeal. Further, there is no global Arbitration Court, and while in theory it would be able to be a court of appeals, seeing how the ArbCom acts on several English-language projects makes me think that such a body will only create global sanctions rather than let users edit communities that did not want to lose them. Currently the WMF is acting like a global ArbCom with no possibilities of appeal, while I wholly support almost everything written in the proposal, I cannot really stand behind the proposal because of how it might be implemented. I don't have much time, but I will try to expand my thoughts and answer the questions below here, saving this now so it won't get lost. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Reaction to 1. What is the best way to arbitrate in cases that involve vulnerable people, serious harassment, and threats against contributors?[edit]

Very simple and complex at the same time, people should be able to report harassment anonymously with a strong onus on proof, but an accused party must at all times be able to defend themselves. Theoretically a new Wikimedia websites similar to the OTRS-Wiki can be created where such things can be dealt with in private but all relevant parties would be able to see each other.

Let's say User A perceives User B of harassing them, this harassment also happens off-wiki and they evidence, this could be on another website or even the Outernet (or however the world outside of the internet is called), User A is quite sensitive to these things and reports it to the Wikimedia Foundation. User B should be given a fair chance to stop (unless it's too serious, think death threats, or other forms of violence, rape, theft, burglary, or stalking) and User B should be able to be given a chance to defend themselves. Obviously if User A has a credible police report against User B and says that this user might be using a Wikimedia website or multiple Wikimedia websites to harass not only them or others then Wikimedia Foundation should issue a global ban (though the indefinite nature is always something that bothered me, a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 25 years should probably be the rule, but that is different).

Furthermore, the rules must be vague so they can deal with any abuse. The problem is that vague rules themselves can be abused. The best solution would be to create multiple Wiki's for handling this, one would be a wiki where users can report harassment and another user can defend themselves. To be able to edit one has to be invited (this would keep unwanted parties that might jump to the defense of the harasser simply "because they are a valuable admin on WikiX" out, as well as the type that would say "(S)he's blocked on our wiki, so we don't like User B").

Personally I think that the Wikimedia Fountain should have some more "community-focused channel wiki's" where they can interact with the community concerning this. I really didn't have the time to work out these ideas, which is why I refrained from commenting... --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  • "What is the best way to arbitrate...?" Hard to answer. Me I don't stay silent, I think it's already not bad. We don't all have apparently the same understanding of what is "Threats", "Hounding" and "Abuse of power, privilege, or influence" [1]. Fear of speaking truths and the need to avoid conflicts leading to silences and complacency in the face of discussable behavior tends to contradict with an effective and a fundamental struggle fight against harassment. Christian Ferrer (talk)

Reaction to 2. How can we create better reporting pathways for users who are targets of harassment?[edit]

See the above, the Wikimedia Foundation acts like a secretive judge, jury, and executioner today, there is very little insight into who reports, how they reported, and why action was taken. If the post-ban posts by Reguyla/Kumioko and Graaf Statler are to be believed neither user really knows why they were banned, but I prefer to not comment on specific cases here. The current system is simply not transparent, and while I don't think that it should necessarily be transparent for everyone, I think that new websites for both bans and ban appeals should be created for the simple reason that we don't know what or why ToS bans occur.

For the full log (including, for example, alternate accounts also locked under this policy), visit the WMFOffice log.

  • Beta M, since 15 March 2012
  • Demiurge1000, since 3 December 2014.
  • Dcoetzee, since 3 December 2014.
  • Amorrow, since 17 January 2015.
  • Leucosticte‎, since 17 January 2015.
  • Poetlister/Quillercouch, since 17 January 2015.
  • Russavia, since 17 January 2015
  • Meco, since 23 March 2015
  • Irada / İrada, since 11 June 2015
  • Francis Kaswahili, since 23 July 2015
  • Scalhotrod, since 2 November 2015
  • Liliana-60, since 22 April 2016
  • John F. Lewis , since 22 April 2016
  • WayneRay, since 22 April 2016
  • Ktr101, since 22 April 2016
  • Styron111, since 17 June 2016
  • Jake Christie of Southern California since 8 October 2016
  • Reguyla/Kumioko since 13 April 2017
  • MyWikiBiz / Thekohser since 19 April 2017
  • Graaf Statler since 19 April 2017

Messina since 29 August 2017

  • Krisdegioia, since 11 September 2017
  • 守望者爱孟 since 1 December 2017
  • Aydinsalis, since 13 December 2017
  • Classiccardinal, since 9 January 2018
  • INeverCry / Daphne Lantier, since 30 January 2018
  • Abd, since 24 February 2018
  • Elbasyouny, since 20 June 2018
  • Galaxyharrylion, since 8 August 2018
  • BrillLyle, since 8 August 2018
  • VivaVoltaire, since 10 September 2018
  • ISECHIKA (いせちか), since 20 September 2018
  • Projects/George Reeves Person, since 18 October 2018
  • MelVic, since 20 March 2019
  • WhenDatHotlineBling, since 20 March 2019
  • *SM*, since 25 March 2019
  • Wikinger, since 23 September 2019
  • Laportehistorian, since 30 September 2019
  • Pitufo.Budista, since 7 October 2019
  • EMans, since 7 October 2019
  • Comunicacionsocial, since 7 October 2019
  • Cruks / Tokota, since 21 October 2019
  • Carlos Eduardo1989, since 21 October 2019
  • Mukdeng, since 28 October 2019
  • Kompowiec2, since 12 November 2019
  • Hasive, since 19 November 2019
  • Codex Sinaiticus/Til Eulenspiegel, since 20 November 2019
  • JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp, since 25 November 2019
  • Jaredgk2008, since 2 December 2019
  • Timothy Usher/Proabivouac, since 8 January 2020
  • Cervello99, since 21 January 2020
  • জঙ্গলবাসী, since 24 February 2020
  • Joaquinito01, since 2 March 2020
  • Alexcocopro, since 30 March 2020
  • FFA P-16, since 13 April 2020
  • مينا جمال صبحي, since 14 April 2020
  • Maitreidmry/Jim167, since 16 June 2020
  • Icewhiz, since 22 June 2020
  • Cimbail / Robert Dabringhaus, since 29 June 2020
  • Bodiadub / Crazyalien, since 20 July 2020
  • Zawl / Flooded with them hundreds, since 27 July 2020
  • Meganesia / Ashurpedia / * Assyriandude / Cirflow, since 4 August 2020
  • عبد الله, since 29 September 2020
  • Moj92, since 05 October 2020
  • Willwill0415, since 02 November 2020
  • James Salsman, since 17 November 2020
  • SpokojneFale, since 17 November 2020
  • ChemWarfare, since 7 December 2020
Literally yesterday.
  • Lascava / MaoMio, since 4 February 2021


There is no insight given as to why these users were banned, what they did wrong. I think that if such a global policy like this comes to fruition and the user is banned for specific on-wiki things then a lot must be collected by the Wikimedia Foundation of what specific rules of the CoD they broke with diff's and the WMF should provide the relevant communities insight upon request. We're all volunteers here and nobody likes to go to their hobby if they believe a gun could be pointed on them. BUT I don't believe this should be the case for things that are more private, off-wiki harassment should probably be documented on-wiki if the victim wants them to be documented. The entire current system needs to be reformed to include more transparency before I can actually stand behind expanding it.

I forgot to actually mention my idea, if the WMF is already acting like the entire judicial process then it might be better to create a more open "court system", if users truly are irredeemable (as the above list of globallt banned users claim) then transparency should be presented. Furthermore, I believe if it's open then people will be more accepting of the WMF's decisions. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

FYI, the WMF is not acting like a judicial process. It ignores the rules of natural justice, principally by acting as a judge in its own cause, not giving accused persons information as to the accuesations against them, and (perhaps worst of all) not giving an accused person a chance to respond to and defend the allegations. Perhaps a class action might concentrate their minds a tad? Can't afford one myself, but... Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Reaction to 3. In what ways can peer support networks help to support users who are targets of harassment?[edit]

Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation should ask the community if they had fellow Wikimedians that helped them through harassment on-wiki and then invite the users that were recommended to see if they wish to help others. If they are empathetic people that can help others then they should probably have "An Empathy OTRS" which can either be public or private if requested.

We simply cannot look into the psychology of every victim and no one style will help everyone, but finding the right people willing to help would be a start. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

5. How can Wikimedia Commons protect users against false allegations?[edit]

Note, perhaps it was better if a page was created called "Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation/Questions" where each question had "==" to separate it, and users could reply with "===" sections or reply to users specifically in those sections. Just a thought.

Regarding the actual question, now this is difficult, because transparency is the best approach, but if what you're accused of doing is too vile to be posted on-wiki and you aren't actually guilty then it's difficult to respond and I don't think that this community can do very much about it. I still think that the best solution would be to create "a global court wiki" (like the "Wikimedia Safety Wiki" or "Wikisafety") and discuss things there, some cases there could be "visible for all" and others only visible for invited parties.

If someone harasses someone on-wiki today then the user can go to the AN/UP (Administrators' noticeboard/User problems) and provide diff's, it is already essentially "a community court" and often conflicts are resolved there without sanctions. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Donald Trung: I took your suggestion. Thank you. But I think instead of creating another discussion page, maybe we can list the questions on this page so everything will be in one place. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Welcome users with their options[edit]

Not all users know where to report harassment, I remember seeing a thread several years ago on another website where a user stated that they had no idea how "to report bullies on Wikipedia" and it took several weeks for someone to point out the AN but they said that most harassers go unpunished if they're established users. People probably won't be looking up harassment after its already occurred assuming that they even want to continue contributing to Wikimedia Commons and other Wikimedia websites after it occurs.

On Wikimedia Commons there is a bot that welcomes all users with "Template:Welcome", perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation can create a new wiki where all such information is made avaliable in many languages with instructions on where to find help and how to deal with harassment for each community. A bot would then add a welcome message that should be added to their global notifications, the "WikiTools" should probably include a "Report user" that directs them to this website with options tailored specifically from where the clicker came from. For example if you click on "Report harassment" in the Tagalog-language Wiktionary you will be given instructions for there, if you click on that here you will be sent pages that document the rules and guidelines and reporting venues of Wikimedia Commons.

This way everyone knows all of their options from day 1 (one), and if they choose to ignore the notification then additional steps will be made that they will know their options as visibly as possible. Educate users on what they can do, most people that read Wikipedia don't even know Wikimedia Commons exists[Citation Needed] (from anacdotal evidence) let alone know where to report what. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Safeguarding team may help[edit]

To provide support to the vulnerable people or to eliminate serious harassment, and threats against contributors, a Safeguarding Team can be formed. The team will be specially trained and always available to support all the users, which will directly supervised or connected with the foundation's legal team. This team can be formed region or culture wise, so that the team can take action region or culture wise. Because the interpretation of behavior is not same in every region of the world. Users also feel comfortable to communicate with the people from the same culture. It will make reporting easier for users, who are targets of harassment.--Rocky Masum (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@RockyMasum: Thank you for your response. Good of you to bring up the cultural issues as they greatly differ in acknowledging harassment. A follow-up question, could you please elaborate on the formation of the Safeguarding Team? Who should be in that team, community members, WMF staffs, members of affiliates so they can help in off-wiki matters in their regions? Maybe a combination of these? Thanks! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wikitanvir (WMF) The team can be a combination of community members, WMF staffs, members of affiliates so that the team can quickly realize the nature of harassment and able to provide a prompt support. For example a contributor finds offline threat and/or need local legal support, then it is not possible or practical that WMF could provide a prompt support there or community/affiliate members can provide any support without the help of WMF. As the community/affiliate members are volunteer and sometimes a quick support demanded, so the question is who will take the responsibility or spend time to mitigate the issue. That's why we need a team a safeguarding team, which will have all the facilities to provide any kind of support.--Rocky Masum (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[]

My responses to the enforcement questions[edit]

  1. What is the best way to arbitrate in cases that involve vulnerable people, serious harassment, and threats against contributors?
    In such cases, there must be a clear way for the user to report the abuse confidentially. When you are talking about serious harassment or threats (not just a random insult or trolling), safety and privacy trump transparency. Of course confidential reporting also demands a very high bar of evidence and arbiters who understand how to balance the needs of transparency and confidentiality (as they won't be able to please everyone).
  2. How can we create better reporting pathways for users who are targets of harassment?
    Make them private rather than public. On most Wikimedia projects, the reporting venues are the worst place to report harassment as they are frequented by trolls and abusive personalities. No other website requires you to report harassment publicly.
  3. In what ways can peer support networks help to support users who are targets of harassment?
    By offering moral support and guidance on how to deal with harassment. We must be careful, however, that any such peer support networks are not themselves used to perpetuate harassment.
  4. What are the challenges for contributors who provide support to affected users and what is needed to overcome these challenges?
    Any contributors who are serious about supporting victims of harassment will inevitably become targets of harassment themselves. They must have basic training in how to deal with this and how to protect themselves from doxing, stalking, etc.
  5. How can Wikimedia Commons protect users against false allegations?
    All serious allegations have to be thoroughly investigated and confirmed by whoever is taking action. Users who submit multiple false allegations should be sanctioned themselves.
  6. How do we deal with incidents that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them?
    Good detective work and policy provisions that allow sanctions for off-wiki harassment. Note that off-wiki harassment, more than any other form, demands some method of submitting evidence confidentially, as a victim is unlikely to want to direct the attention of the entire community to the off-wiki harassment, as off-wiki harassment is much more likely to include doxxing, fake revenge porn, etc.
Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Exactly so, on all counts. A mere accusation should not be enough. Evidence is required, and that evidence should be relevant, credible and admissible. Hearsay and rumour should not suffice. On the other hand, those accused should have a right to know what is being said against them and what is being used to support those allegations, and in particular should be entitled to a right of reply. Off-wiki harassment is particularly problematic because it's too easy for WMF to say "not our problem". I beg to differ. A collegial atmosphere between Wikimedians is encouraged, but once it is taken off-wiki on to e.g. a blog or public website, it may not be a police matter, but it is certainly an abuse of the collegiality principle. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, Kaldari for responding to the enforcement questions. I understand that you suggested having a private reporting system and I understand your concern. If you have time, could you please let us know what features should a good reporting system have and how can we balance privacy and transparency in reporting and actions we (both WMF and the community) take? As many prefer to have some form of support from WMF, what in your view can be the expected role of WMF regarding UCoC enforcement? Thanks for your valuable insights! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Response by Pelagic[edit]

The questions are very general, and not Commons-specific. (No offence to Wikitanvir (WMF) intended, I imagine all facilitators were tasked with the same set of questions?) I would also like to ask people:

  1. What conduct challenges are unique to Commons? How does it differ from other projects which are generally based around textual content in specific languages? Or is there a sense that “people are people” and we run into the same kind of issues everywhere?
  2. What do you think Commons is doing better or worse than other projects? Any perennial suggestions that never get quite enough support, or seem good on the surface until you dig into the implications? Something you’ve seen on another wiki that might work here? E.g. there are currently comments on AN/UP about re-confirming admins after a fixed term, but one contributor has said that doesn’t make much difference on w:nl.
  3. If a user can’t get satisfaction at or is treated badly at AN/UP, is there a higher power they can turn to? Is there a need for that on Commons, or is the culture so vastly different from say w:en or w:hr that a separate appeals/review body isn’t needed?

Basic enforcement questions

  1. What is the best way to arbitrate in cases that involve vulnerable people, serious harassment, and threats against contributors?
    Counter questions:
    1. How does one define and identify “vulnerable people”?
    2. Aren’t serious harassment and threats already under the remit of T&S?
    3. What about the other end of the spectrum, where you have long-term but low-severity abrasive or otherwise drama-attracting people? Is that within scope for UCC enforcement?
  2. How can we create better reporting pathways for users who are targets of harassment?
    1. I'd like to see a feature in Mediawiki where users can flag a diff/revision as problematic (with a category and a short note). Not for immediate review, but so that further on, when someone is reporting harassment, its easy to pull up reports for the involved parties and see if someone has a pattern of flagged edits that indicate a bigger problem beyond the current case. Also, going back through the history and digging out diffs to support a complaint can be burdensome and maybe distressing to the target. If they could run a report and see all the edits they had flagged, they might tick boxes for the relevant items and generate a diff list that could be copy-pasted, making it easier for them to assemble the evidence needed. (Sure, this isn’t a reporting pathway as asked, but an adjunct tool that could help.)
  3. In what ways can peer support networks help to support users who are targets of harassment?
    1. I’m not sure what exactly is meant by peer support networks, so I’ll try to guess.
    2. Personal friends: I know a lot of people by reputation, but am not close enough to any that there's an individual I could approach directly. Some people do have strong wikifriends but I suspect the majority don’t.
    3. Only a handful of Wikiprojects on the largest wikis would be active enough for peer support. I can think of a few on English Wikipedia that band together, but let's say I was having trouble on Commons, would I go to Wikiproject Taxonomy for a chat?
    4. You might go to your project's Commons:Village pump, but not sure how good that experience is. On English Wikipedia there is also w:en:WP:TEA for newbies: whilst it tries to have more AGF than elsewhere, it's high-volume and conversations age out quickly.
    5. That leaves us with a dedicated advice/support forum. On medium or small wikis, would the people manning that be the same cabal committing the harasssment? If Meta is too intimidating or confusing, then I’m intrigued by Donald Trung's SafetyWiki idea. How would you attract volunteers to help out as advisers? Would T&S commit staff time to check that volunteers are providing good guidance?
  4. What are the challenges for contributors who provide support to affected users and what is needed to overcome these challenges?
    1. How do you tell someone that they are the problem, or that they should reflect on how they contributed to the situation?
    2. It's not just about direct personal support, but also other actions that can be chilled by fear of retaliation. “See something, say something” is a fine sentiment. How to report without becoming a target oneself? I recently ('pedia not Commons) had a situation where I reverted but didn't immediately report the abuse nor inform the target. I intended to come back when able via anon/proxy* to do so, but luckily the offender had already been blocked and I didn’t need to. There are different levels of severity: some you can template their user page with a warning and move on, with others you ask yourself “do I want to subject myself to this?” (*Wikimedia's policy of blocking proxies, VPNs, and web security providers is a two-edged sword.)
  5. How can Wikimedia Commons protect users against false allegations?
    1. I’m glad you’re asking this question, one of my concerns about UCC is that it could be “weaponised”.
    2. Evidence, “diffs or it didn't happen”.
    3. There needs to be some ability to examine the context: was the user provoked? And the quality of evidence: has it been cherry-picked? It’s not just about false allegations, but also misleading, vexatious, or harassing ones.
    4. How do you manage to be open to input (evidence, context, counter-arguments) from interested parties (not just the complainants and accused, but also “peer support networks” and neutral non-involved observers) without ending up in a pile-on where the side with the most friends wins?
    5. In the civil legal system, there is a high financial barrier to bringing a case, so much that most people are excluded. On w:en:AN/I, the risk is that the complainant's behaviour is also open to examination. Boomerangs versus victim-blaming? We want users who are genuinely harassed to not have a barrier to seeking help, but a low barrier to entry also means a low barrier to vexatious claims and harassment-by-process.
    6. Distinguish between when someone says they feel harassed versus would a reasonable person feel harassed in this situation. Then how do you stop the reasonable-person test degenerating into “just harden up and stop complaining”, “if you can’t handle the heat...” etc.?
  6. How do we deal with incidents that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them?
    1. To be sanctionable, the incidents have to be targeted at specific individuals, not just something that someone finds morally objectionable or ideologically hurtful. And you have to be quite sure that it's not a Joe-job. How can you be confident that someone calling themself AggroUser on FringeSite is really the same person as AggroUser on Wikimedia?

Sorry for the long reply, but these are complex issues and I’ve barely scratched the surface. Pelagic (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

I fed the various language pages listed at m:Universal Code of Conduct/Discussions#Phase 2 local consultations through Google Translate, and, contrary to my assumption above, the questions asked vary quite a bit between them. Pelagic (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello Pelagic, your feedback is very valuable and you might have noticed that I already took some of your questions in the survey. So, thank you! I think the definition of “vulnerable people” could vary in projects/cultures. But it's an interesting question that I will surely mention in my report. And UCoC applies to all users regardless of their involvement. I liked your answer about peer support. But in case community-provided support is not sufficient, could you please tell us what kind of support we can provide to the victim? What can be the role of WMF regarding UCoC enforcement? There are similar questions in the #WMF and UCoC section. You can add more questions there and answer if you prefer. Thanks again! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Five pillars[edit]

As far as I can see there is now page in Commons: about Five Pillars, or equivalent, like w:en:Wikipedia:Five pillars and many other language editions. In my humble opinion Commons is more in need of an adapted Five Pillar statement than the long text of the UCoC. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Ad Huikeshoven: Did you mean to write "there is now a page" or "there is no page"? Current wording is not easily deciphered, and could mean these two opposite things. - Jmabel ! talk 06:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I stroke the w now, I meant "no page". Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I didn't actually know that page, thanks for the link (it didn't yet exist when I got my enWP welcome message). Pillar 4 looks like a rather concise and well readable summary of the UCoC, to me. It will be easier to get people to read that, than to get them to read the whole policy. An adapted Five Pillars for Commons would indeed be a win, if we can agree on a version. On enWP it acts a portal to detailed policy pages and guidelines. We would still need those, and the UCoC could be one of them. --rimshottalk 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]

5P is a bad fit for Commons. Commons has been around for a long time, so there are well established policies and guidelines that handle civility sufficiently for this international project, for example a "non-hostile environment" is guaranteed via COM:BP and COM:Mellow is a friendly reminder about behaviours. Some parts of 5P simply do not work:

  • P1 this is not an encyclopaedia, see COM:Scope,
  • P2 media items do not need to be neutral and some might be entirely to illustrate one side of a debate, see COM:NPOV,
  • P3 is okay but licensing can be more complex, see COM:L,
  • P4 okay, covered by COM:BP, COM:Mellow, though some folx are trying to get an essay agreed, there's no proposal and this area has a long history,
  • P5 COM:IAR exists, but it should probably stay an essay, there's no need to make a policy for it.

-- (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Sure you can write an essay about how 5P is not relevant.
It would not be relevant and it would become another essay everyone forgot existed.
Existing policies are fine and there's no evidence that they have failed. -- (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean as "WP:SAFE" doesn't exist nor does "COM:SAFE" have a deletion log. Anyhow, I proposed for the 5P to be a hub for existing rules and guidelines on Wikimedia Commons. This project simply lacks such a page that can easily explain noobies (new users) what the most important rules and guidelines are. As the most common mistakes seem to be around copyright and scope issues the Commonswiki 5P should list those prominently. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
COM:5P, it's all there prominently. If you think it could be clearer, propose a change to it. -- (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for all the replies. I am an occasional contributor to Commons, and was unaware of existing policies. This consultation is about enforcing guidelines about conduct. COM:BP is a policy, with a single line about harassment, which does not cover the breadth and wide of code of conducts like the Contributor Covenant or the UCoC. COM:Mellow is an essay, and therefore not an accepted policy. To restate my original remark into a question: "How is it for you to adapt COM:BP and/or COM:Mellow rather than the long text of the UCoC? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]

The opening of this thread was about an "adapted" 5P. We don't need to adapt COM:BP as the spelled out list of unacceptable behaviours of vandalism, edit warring, harassment, abusive sockpuppetry, are not just commonly accepted and understood, but have an effective decade+ of case histories. The associated official policies and guidelines work in concert with BP, so it would be wrong to dismiss "hostile environment" as an expectation for all good faith contributors as being simplistic or deficient for some other reason against the UCoC. Further this consultation is not a request for how the projects might improve their policies, but the reverse, of how the UCoC might be implemented.
These scopes are significantly different, as though Commons needs the support of not-elected-here stewards and WMF T&S for global locks and "non-legal" material, with regard to handling requests for action to stop harassment against contributors, apart from fringe exceptions, the current Commons policies are effective and operate without a complex bureaucracy of a secretive Arbcom group, or an arcane set of pseudo legal policies which promote an adversarial process which by its nature would victimize targets.
The conclusion has to be that searching for problems with Commons policies is not the topic of this consultation, nor is it as effective as making a specific proposal to improve them, if that's what the desired outcome is here, rather than expanding on UCoC implementation for the wMF to learn something from. -- (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]


As far as I can see there is no page in the Commons: namespace about Etiquette like w:en:Wikipedia:Etiquette and many other language editions. Commons is more in need of an Etiquette page than the long text of the UCoC. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]

mellow -- (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
w:en:Wikipedia:Etiquette is a guideline and Commons:Staying mellow is an essay. None of them are very enforceable in case someone is breaking the norms. --Jarekt (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
As per the extensive case history, our understanding of COM:BP to block accounts deliberately creating a hostile environment for others is interpreted via the concepts in the essay. In particular we have a common understanding that this is an international project, so language interpretation and cultural norms are viewed with this lens, in a way that a monolingual project never would.
Extensively proceduralizing based on the backlog of experience, would create a body of "law" and attract wikilawyering and loopholes. A UCoC consultation is not a good reason to stop the approach of keeping it simple. -- (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
So you do agree with me that Commons does not need the long UCoC text. Where can I find a summary of the extensive case history spelling out acceptable and not acceptable behavior on Commons? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Commons has no system of litigation, or the training of wikilawyers that would result in guides for pupils. However one can surf the admin noticeboard archives for useful exemplar past cases of block reviews and challenges to the interpretation of BP in all the major areas of interest like harassment, revert warring, systems misuse, misleading sockpuppetry, abuse of authority and so on. -- (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Contributor Covenant[edit]

As, if and when Commons would be in need for a comprehensive Code of Conduct, I prefer the meta:Contributor Covenant over the long UCoC. The Contributor Covenant has been adopted by tens of thousands of open source projects. The UCoC is hopeless. The Contributor Covenant provides as a rule that I can use a private channel for filing a complaint, which will be confidentially processed. The UCoC fails to provide any such pathway. How do other Commoners feel about the Contributor Covenant versus the UCoC. Which one do you prefer? Or would you rather have something like w:en:Wikpedia:Etiquette? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Response by Jarekt[edit]

I think UCoC is a well written and quite good single document clarifying what I believe is a norm. As for the 5 questions I was thinking along the lines of User:MGA73 above that COM:AN/UP should be sufficient in most cases; however after reading User:Kaldari answers in here I tend to be also agreeing with his statements about need for private confidential channels. So perhaps we could still recommend COM:AN/UP as a first line of defense, with possibility of some confidential channel for those who do not feel comfortable using COM:AN/UP. One thing UCoC seems to be missing is some section on what are expected consequences of norm braking behavior, hopefully starting with a warning and escalating through several levels before total ban. One issue with confidential channels is that someone breaks UCoC norms and is eventually rightfully banned, but the reason for the ban is "secret" than this causes a lot of distrust in the system, akin to online version of w:Forced disappearances. Over the years I interacted with many of the of the banned users listed in here, and do not recall anything negative about most of them. I did spend time at some point trying to figure out what might have triggered a ban on otherwise knowledgeable and polite user and run into total lack of transparency. --Jarekt (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]

By be way, meta:Contributor_Covenant#Enforcement_Guidelines seems to be the section I was missing in UCoC. --Jarekt (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
That part I miss also. In the previous consultation I learned that those parts are to be discussed in the enforcement consultation, which is the current consultation. So, there is now a ratified UCoC which is incomplete, because lacking any enforcement guidelines. Another part that is missing is a private channel to file complaints, which is the centerpiece of the Contributor Coventant. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
If you believe it is well written, can you explain to me what "positive" means in the lede? - Jmabel ! talk 07:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
One interpretation of "positive" is to gaslight critics of the WMF, especially when an unpaid volunteer is criticizing the actions or asserting bad faith assumptions of a WMF employee or contractor. Often the mantra that "we welcome criticism" means "we welcome positive criticism", sometimes it's explicit but we've never seen a definition that separates negative criticism from positive criticism.
This is confusing Americanocentric language as if someone misuses their tools, or directly makes a bad faith allegation, it's not clear how to respond to that with "positive criticism" that is not so washed out that there will be no action taken. In HR training, we talk about the "sandwich" of good news, bad news, good news, which is fine if you are paid to be part of HR, it's not reasonable to expect volunteers to meet professional standards every time they want to flag something is wrong.
So, yes, "positive" needs to come out or be replaced with something more implementable, like "civil" with a link to something that defines it. -- (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@: I'm an American, and have no idea WTF the WMF means here by "positive". It's not an "Americanocentric language," it's vacuous bureaucratese. I'm sure your bureaucrats have their equivalent: in the Francophone case, from what I can tell, it's usually more grand and less bland, but just as empty. - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The use of the word "positive" is misleading here. A "positive" environment may be welcome, but is meaningless, because on the face of it, it negates positive criticism. I may say "I don't think your edit is helpful because it ignores X, Y & Z". I see that as positive criticism in that it gives reasons for the objection. However, some will take it as negative, even if X, Y & Z turn out to be wrong. If a positive environment means we should just lean over and let our tummies be tickled by those who happen to be louder, I want no part of it. Academic debate isn't about that. But it is about respect for an alternative point of view (sadly) however ridiculous. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but I don't think I will be around here for much longer. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
The word "positive" mean "constructive" and this is quite abstract, there is an infinite number of ways to be constructive. It may be a way of introducing the concept of "constructive" vs "unconstructive", tha we can find later in the policy as "Expected" vs "Unacceptable" behaviours. Personally that does not shock me. That being said I would tend myself to not to insist too much on what "should be positive" in policies, but more to tend to be much more uncompromising with behavior that are within the "Unacceptable behavior", especially with people who have advanced rights. Christian Ferrer (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
To the authors of the document: if "positive" means "respectful," then say "respectful." If it means something else, say something else clear. If it means "it's way more important to be nice than truthful", say goodbye to rigor, as we will no longer be a serious effort to create academically useful sites, because we have decided we'd rather sit around and sing "Kumbaya." - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, that's it, let's sing. :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]


@Jarekt: , Hi Jarekt, thanks for your feedback. About the missing enforcement guidelines of UCoC is the purpose of this consultation. This feedback from all of you will be considered when creating the UCoC enforcement guidelines.
I understand that transparency of the actions needs to be developed and I think you also realize, that at the same time not everything can be written down publicly (nor that we should) How do you think WMF can keep a balance in such cases? What is the role you expect from WMF regarding UCoC enforcement and transparency? Appreciate your feedback! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikitanvir (WMF), I assume that banned users are notified exactly why they were banned through some private channels, like email. In majority of the cases the ban justification should not be hidden. However I can imagine cases when they might be sensitive so perhaps banned users should decide how public reasons for the ban should be. So when someone is banned than we should either be able to see what were the reasons or see that the banned person requested that ban justification should be private. As for WMF role in UCoC enforcement and transparency, I believe that WMF has right to block anybody that violates WFM terms of use or Code of Conduct, especially if the user is placing WFM in some legal peril.
  • The consequences should be proportional to the offenses
  • In most cases enforcement should follow warning -> temporary ban -> permanent ban sequence. However I can imagine scenarios where some deliberate behavior might result in instant permanent ban
  • I like current system of WMF office actions in deleting some files: it is announced at Village Pump and logged of designated page.
  • I think permanent community bans should be voted on while temporary ones could be administered by a single admin.
Hope this helps. --Jarekt (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[]
It certainly does. Thanks, Jarekt. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Re: "see that the banned person requested that ban justification should be private," there may be times when it is the person who is harassed is the one who needs the ban justification to be private in order to avoid the Streisand effect. Especially true if someone's been outed, but also important not to publicize any organized campaign against someone. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Jmabel That is a good point, but than I think we should still see the full reasoning for the ban without mentioning other users by name or username. --Jarekt (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[]

How can we create better reporting pathways for users who are targets of harassment?[edit]

  • Please provide for a private channel to report incidents or complaints, and guarantee confidentiality in processing incidents and complaints, protecting the privacy of both parties. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ad Huikeshoven: Thanks for mentioning the private channels for reporting. Could you please tell us how we can ensure a balance between privacy and transparency in such reporting system and the overall enforcement? Also could you please answer this question regarding reporting? Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Proposal for use of off-wiki surveys and third-party tools[edit]

Created as a consequence of this consultation using mass messaging for a UCoC survey using Google forms, please see Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Use of off-wiki surveys using third-party tools which may help avoid use of third party survey tools in the future on this project, and may help the WMF consider a policy for using existing open source alternatives across all projects. -- (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]


Some of the survey questions and a few additional questions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement are represented here. Please provide your input on any and all questions you wish. Feel free to add UCoC enforcement related questions/challenges you want to raise, but while doing so, please provide your opinion on them as well. Thank you. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Reporting conduct issues[edit]

What features should a good reporting system have?[edit]

Hello everyone, many of you have provided your opinion on the reporting system. It would help us if you could provide some feedback on the feature of a good reporting system as well. I would be pleased to see your inputs here. Also, you can say about where the reporting links should be placed, what features can we have to avoid misuse of such a system, and so on. Thanks! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 2 euro-cents. I think that there should be a reporting feature for diff's or a collection of edits and that a user can select from a large number of standard options (like Google YouTube and the Facebook has) but then also provide an option "Other, please explain." Where the user(s) can report the incidents. Then the user will be asked "⚪ Report publicly (your reports will be posted to "Commons:Reported abuse/2021 Week 9") | ⚫ Report privately (your report(s) will be reviewed by volunteers with special permissions and may take longer to be processed)". I don't think that most new users will necessarily know where and how to report abuse, furthermore, admins when blocking users have standard options for issuing blocks which are often vague, so it wouldn't even be that different of a departure of our current system, only "more accessible". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Regarding the system, the Commonsspace page can possibly be daily, depending on number of reports, and it will only be editable by users with special permissions (all sysop+ users are automatically granted this as well). This will make it easier to make reports. You don't need an account o make reports, but partial blocks should be able to prevent users from making reports, though as always I Am against indefinite blocking, but I am sure at I Wouldn't be able to stop it.. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]

How should the reporting system be designed so that it ensures privacy?[edit]

A fair reporting system that ensures maximum privacy is not possible. You cannot file a report on a harasser without revealing some information about the harassment that makes it possible to identify the victim of the harassment. Harassers know who they have been harassing. Acting on a secret report and presenting the accused with a finding wherein all evidence has been redacted deprives the accused of a fair hearing with the opportunity to respond to the accusations. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Vexations, achieving a hundred percent would be difficult. If I understood correctly, you're referring to a balance between reporting and taking actions based on the reports and you're concerned about how the accused's right to defend. If so, what do you think about how we can give the accused the right to defend themselves and how can we balance between privacy and transparency of the reports (if you're willing to compromise, what would that be and how much)? Is this a technical challenge? Thanks! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

How can we balance the privacy and safety of the reporters and with transparency and accountability of reports?[edit]

  • Some elected users (?elected for that purpose?) of the local comunity may be granted for access to reports. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • You don't, very sensitive violations against a user that doesn't want that stuff to be online shouldn't be transparent, unfortunately the community can't know if what occurred is as bad that it warrants a WMF global ban (or "SanFran ban"), but the privacy of the victim trumps the transparency of the system (something I personally disagree with, but practically would see lots of scandals with if not implemented). Reporting users should have the option to say "I don't want this event to be publicly knowledgeable" but only if it happens off-wiki because of something Wikimedia related. Any abuse on-wiki should be publicly listed on-wiki, a "wall of shame" isn't bad, that's how ArbCom's already function. I agree with "User:Christian Ferrer" that (elected?) community people should have insight into these cases, people like the current OTRS agents that have to be essentially "the communicators" towards the community for cases that require oversighting like this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

How can we protect users against false allegations?[edit]

  • By approaching them and asking their side of the story, this is often not done on many Wikimedia websites already, but any reporting system should be able to consult the accused, if they choose to not respond it's their responsibility, but they should at least be given a chance. Though there should probably be given some understanding if a user gets angry and might lash out at a messenger, some people are hot-heads and many of them can be calmed down with a patient approach. All records should be kept and accessible to concerned parties, and if permission is given to additional parties if they are called as some sort of "witness". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]

How can we handle allegations against advanced rights holders?[edit]

  • Very hard to answer to that, that depends on who made allegations, where have been made the allegations, the context, if/where the allegations have been reported, ect...
For allegations in wiki and reported e.g. to WMF T&S you can begin like that:
1/ by asking privately the opinions of several other similar advanced rights holders within the same comunity
2/ if necessary by asking privately to the person accused of making allegations to comment about

Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Pretty much the same as against any user. Having advanced rights should not confer any advantage. As a matter of principle, allegations on-wiki can be supported by diffs and left to the community to resolve. Abuse of advanced permissions such as Oversight are not necessarily resolvable locally, so may be not determinable by local communities. However, it is incumbent on those enforcing such breaches to give at least a skeleton rationale for doing so Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately in my experience Admins, are unaccountable. What to do when for example when an Admin makes unwanted changes on projects he has no special knowledge of, ignoring advice from users with far more experience in the subject at hand, and flagrantly ignoring consensus. Constantly gaming the system. Admins seem to have the status of Supreme Court judges, of office for life. We need a review and reassessment process, whereby those that go off the rails, can have their powers removed. Ordinary users don't have the tools, to revert damage caused by runaway Admins. Broichmore (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Admins actually are accountable, however misguided and intolerant their opponents are. In my case, I didn't come here or to Wikipedia to stir up trouble or generate a fanclub. I came here to do the right thing and "improve the sum total of human knowledge". Would that others would do the same. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I need to modify, somewhat, how I'm coming across. I agree with your aims Rod. Admins should be exactly that, and the great majority are. However it only takes a few bad apples to sour the whole cart. The current mechanisms works for the better people, but there is a tiny minority that should be reviewed and reined in, and I see no mechanism that works with the more belligerent of them. Broichmore (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[]

UCoC enforcement[edit]

Basic enforcement questions[edit]

What is the best way to arbitrate in cases that involve vulnerable people, serious harassment, and threats against contributors?[edit]
  • By talking to all involved parties and let any side call witnesses and refer to Diff's. If possible these things should be in "a public court" preferably on the main wiki of abuse, or perhaps on "a safety wiki" where "court pages" are invite-only. The main function of "neutral parties" should be resolving issues and trying to stop the abuse through engagement rather than just swinging the ban hammer around, depending of course on the level of conflict. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[]
How can we create better reporting pathways for users who are targets of harassment?[edit]
In what ways can peer support networks help to support users who are targets of harassment?[edit]
  • Advertise, in most Wikimedia websites you have to be in the know to find a lot of things, if there would be a "Report abuse button" (which I think should exist, but am also wholly aware of the abuse the button would (ironically) cause) there should be a window that says "If you need any emotional support you can go to "Commons:Emotional support"." Or something (or through a SafetyWiki where volunteers operate that specifically look for people to support), though everyone has different thresholds of what they consider "abuse", often I see people on Wikimedia Commons getting emotional to see their uploads deleted, copyright © isn't an easy thing to always understand and a lot of discussion occurs, it's sad to see contributors leave over deletions, but I am also afraid that peer emotional support might have to go to a lot of these cases because to some having their works attacked feels like them being attacked. This also applies to articles on a Wikipedia or other content on other Wikimedia websites, human interactions are quite complex and irrational actions on all sides might leave a peer support line overworked. I remember the OTRS having a backlog of half a year on Wikimedia Commons, imagine after being bullied feeling ignored for so long, you probably won't come back to Wikimedia (Commons). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

... Thank you Donald Trung for your understanding. I had uploaded over fifty photos with copyright information. As a new contributor I have asked the person who deleted them all at once to please explain the reason and if needed guide me to the correct CC code on 1 February 2021, but to this day I have not heard from him/her. Will I contribute again? I would like to do so. However, I need the assurance that I will not be the target of harassment by the few who may have some hidden agendas. Bineshgardi (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Bineshgardi Why do you think you were the target of harassment by people with hidden agendas? Vexations (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, Vexations, when one contributes one's time and offering under the impression of entering a cooperative community, but their contributions which after trying to correct, in good faith, the mistake, are axed and deleted, and beyond that is ignored for asking guidance and clarifications; what is one to think? One person suggests deletion, another one does it. And the contributor asking for help is ignored. Do you have any suggestions please? Bineshgardi (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Two things: help should be available to those who need it, but there should be no obligation to volunteers to help anyone with anything. I cannot compel you to help me with something, because you're a volunteer. You do not owe me your time. I also think we need to make sure that unfounded accusations of harassment are quickly dismissed. Deletion of copyrighted material is not harassment. As for an explanation of why your contributions were deleted, I'd be happy to explain that on your talk page.Vexations (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, I agree with most of the points you made here in your response regarding my question. However, don't you think people in an interactive community deserve a response to their situation created by others? Your response and valuable clarifications are much appreciated. Thank you for your time here, and more on my talk page.Bineshgardi (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Some projects, like English Wikipedia have a policy that states that Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools That seems to be your concern. Things are bit different here on Commons, but Commons:Guide to adminship, which is not an official policy says (to Administrators): "You should help users when they request it, or point them to someone or somewhere else where they can get help." The UCoC does not specifically address administrative actions. In my experience, administrators are mindful of the impact of their administrative actions, and willing to explain why they did what they did. It usually suffices to simply point to the applicable policy, such as Commons:Licensing. I don't think that an admin who takes administrative action "creates a situation". All of us, especially when we are new, make mistakes. When we find ourselves in that position, we make an effort to understand how to avoid making the same mistake again. Asking for help in such a situation is perfectly fine, but it is not incumbent upon the person who fixed the mistake to explain the policy they applied. Vexations (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[]
What are the challenges for contributors who provide support to affected users and what is needed to overcome these challenges?[edit]
How do we deal with incidents that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects but are related to them?[edit]
  • Create special reporting pathways for them, again create a "Safety Wiki" where users can set up "personalised" report cases where they can mention off-wiki harassments with the advice to store everything in the Jnternet Archive's Wayback Machine, then add the archived links there and explain which users said what. Then an "investigation" page will be created where an arbiter, the accuser, and the accused can discuss the case. If the abuse is too serious and the user already admitted to being the abuser on-wiki then it's a clear cut case. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Others enforcement-related questions[edit]

Who should enforce UCoC violations on Commons?[edit]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Locally, users shouldn't be globally punished for local misbehaviours. Many "enwiki banned" are contributors here in high standing and if someone is disrupting Wikimedia Commons they should be banned from Wikimedia Commons not Wikimedia. The community should first be consulted and local admins should act, the Wikimedia Foundation should only be consulted about really serious cases that may have legal ramifications for the website, interpersonal issues should be dealt with local, users with other issues should be dealt with locally. Unless the Wikimedia Foundation becomes more transparent and allows for users to appeal their global bans at least once every two (2) years I don't want to see the WMF involved in anything non-advisory. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]
If the preferred enforcement body couldn’t resolve the issue, what should be done or who should be contacted to find a solution?[edit]

Hey all, I see this section is empty. It's a very important scenario to consider so please provide your opinion. I want to share that, on the survey, many prefer a combination of a global committee and WMF T&S to solve such issues. Please let us know what you think, or would you prefer a separate mechanism? Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Donald Trung: Considering your previous question's answer, you might be interested in this one. Thank you. :) Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikitanvir (WMF), your question presupposes that some enforcement bodies have enforcement capabilities that others don't. What are those superpowers, and where do they come from? Are they technological or social? If there is a technological hierarchy, that would presumably mean that the the WMF sits at the top of that hierarchy, but it does not follow from their technical abilities that the WMF is any good at solving the most difficult conduct issues, which may require a non-technological set of skills. Let me change the question a bit and make it less of a leading question by removing the assumption that escalating the problem up the hierarchy is the only solution: If the (preferred) enforcement body couldn’t resolve the issue, what should be done to fix that? Many businesses have found that when resolving problems for customers empowering employees to make decisions rather than letting customers "talk to your manager" is far more successful. In our context, that means giving more power to the people who need it, in line with our professed commitment to subsidiarity. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Vexations, that is useful advice and I changed as you suggested. I actually took this question from the survey where there were also multiple choices. I think the point you've made is correct and important. Many conduct issues are solved in talk page discussions in Commons. Some are not happy with the outcome and in that case, they open a discussion on ANU. Some of them are still unhappy about the result of ANU discussion so sometimes they approach T&S (as some of them said here). There's a pattern here. That's why I asked about to whom should anyone file complains to or ask for remedies and what kind of support that body should provide. I don't mean that anyone has any superpower and in some cases, the volunteers may have far advantages to resolve such issues that satisfy both parties. Therefore, please let us know what can be done if the solution of the preferred body doesn't satisfy the party(s). Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree with Vexations, Wikimedia websites have existed for two (2) decades now and the cultures of these 900+ websites are ever changing and enforcement isn't always easy. Independent of the above my issue with these universal WikiLaws is universal enforcement for local issues, look at this user for example, the template on the user page reads "This user account has been locked across all Wikimedia projects. To appeal this global lock, you have to make a steward request on" from my personal experience with being globally locked is that appealing to stewards is useless, I was lucky that there were other users willing to post to the global (un)lock requests page to request it for me, no single e-mail by a globally locked user will ever be read by a steward, going to their IRC will immediately result in insults and a ban from all Wikimedia- and Wikia-/Fandom-related IRC's, Etc. Global unlocks are rare while more commonly global locks are enforced, a user never before locally blocked on Wikimedia Commons like a former Wikispecies Bureaucrat that is now globally locked and didn't have any local blocks on Wikimedia Commons can't contribute here, despite the fact that all of his contributions are high quality uploads of specimens of animal species. (I forgot his name, I am sure Koavf knows who I am talking about, Australian bloke, a doctor). We have been seeing more tools and methods for banning while systematically any options for appeals are slowly disappearing, just look at the growing list of globally banned (WMF) users that can't appeal. I notice that a lot of users that become long-term abusers were at one point contributors in good standing that had one bad day that turn into years of abuse.
I am afraid that the UCoC could eventually be used by the WikiEstablishment to turn a local block on one Wikimedia website into an instant unappealable global ban/lock. Instead of brain-storming more ways to enforce sanctions, perhaps there should be more ways to appeal sanctions so users with a few issues don't become vengeful abusers. Some users are unblocked and then are never blocked again, but they at least had the chance to first appeal their blocks, it is becoming rarer ans rarer to see any chances being given at all. My general opinion is that more venues for conversation and appeals should be created before more venues for enforcement should even be considered.
On the other hand, long-term abuse against users should be more easily reportable as too much abuse goes unpunished, but this should be publicly logged unless it is very specifically privacy sensitive. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Donald Trung, if you think appealing to m:Steward requests/Global or emailing to stewards isn't effective, what sort of process would you recommend so it will be easier to give accused a second chance to return after a period of global locks? What kind of transparency do you expect so we know if the requests are being simply neglected or carefully taken care of? Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Replying to "if you think appealing to m:Steward requests/Global or emailing to stewards isn't effective", well "m:Steward requests/Global" isn't open for appeals anymore, and e-mails don't ever see a reply. With the English-language Wikipedia ArbCom you basically get one appeal and it's always an automated "wait six (6) months before you even get to appeal" and if you reply earlier your e-mail address will be blocked and then you can't appeal. My problem furthermore is that if the WMF will get involved with sanctions (which it already is) that it's essentially "just another venue for sanctioning users". User A and User B don't like each other, User A reports User B to local admins, the local admins don't take action, User B is blocked on two other Wikimedia websites, User A requests a global lock for User B, the stewards tell User A to request a global ban, User A requests a global ban, people from User B's "homewiki" overwhelm the rest and User B stays unbanned, now User A appeals some UCoC court and User B is globally banned. No local admin, no steward, and no community can overturn this. The same is true if anyone else in the chain had banned User B earlier. Local admins can't allow a user to edit locally because global locks (while against current policy, but in practice) are essentially global bans, stewards can't locally unblock users, and the Wiktionary community can force Wikisource to accept a user. In the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation rules had "a right to no appeal" (forgot the Latin term), I am afraid that this will simply create another hammer 🔨 with no cushions. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
There is also a lot of nuance involved, in the earlier scenario User B could have been an abusive Rollbacker or Admin that were abusing their powers and User A didn't get justice because User B was "an unblockable" member of the community, they did violate the UCoC and no justice occurred for User A. I still think that the UCuC is a good idea in theory, I am just worried that the implementation will prove otherwise.
I think that the NLWiki ArbCom has a good system that all (or at least most) e-mails to it are published on-wiki and the community can discuss it. It's not a perfect system but it's a lot more transparent than the EnWiki ArbCom. The current WMF enforcement through global bans sucks because they are not transparent and no (public) discussions ever take place. The WMF should have learned from Framgate before implementing a system and take lessons learned. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, that user was a long-term abusive editor who provided quality information but drove away others with abusive language. A code of conduct is required so that we have both quality content and a quality community. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Please share a workable enforcement mechanism that you have witnessed in another Wikimedia project that you would like to recommend for Commons[edit]

WMF and UCoC[edit]

What is the expected role of WMF regarding UCoC enforcement?[edit]

  • When you see visceral reactions of some users when they hear or read "WMF" the role of WMF should be a last resort, e.g. firstly a local enforcement; then if needed a more global enforcement, and in last resort WMF enforcement. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • 1. Above all, be fair, scrupulously fair and be seen to be so. Otherwise, confidence in their decisions will be lost, leading to disrepute.
  • 2. Care for the mental health of your vulnerable contributors when you have a chance to do so. Dont risk driving them to suicide.
  • 3. Deal firmly but proportionately with off-wiki abuse. The more damaging the abuse, so should the response be. Don't mess about "putting notes on peoples' files". Kick them out.
  • Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A couple of years ago, and this will sound odd, I had a dream that I woke up to a notification, the WMFOffice account left a message on my talk page that read "If you don't stop your behaviour now you will be globally banned" and I replied with "Stop doing what? I am willing to comply", the account replied only with "This is your last chance" and then after attempting to edit I saw the message "The WMF has restricted you from taking action". Obviously, this is just a dream and it's my own brain playing with me, but after that I used to check probably until only a couple of months ago (due to the mobile telephone I used to check it breaking), I checked it obsessively. I likely had that dream after reading stories from either Reguyla or Graaf Statler on some blog or forum. Why am I bringing this up? Very simple, it might be a common anxiety felt by users that will be approached by the WMF if it gets involved with the enforcement of UCoC violations, I wouldn't be surprised if other Wikimedians have had such nightmares in the past, especially people critical of the WMF. Plus it's clear that many communities don't like to see the WMF "meddling with internal processes". This office action may have been well-received on Wikimedia Commons where he harassed several people, but on the French-language Wiktionary he was a sysop with a lot of support of their community. I don't disagree with the spirit of the UCoC, but the WMF shouldn't do so without consulting the communities where the defendant is a member of. There was also a Wikimedia Commons sysop that resigned and blocked themselves indefinitely with the justification "Because WMF" in response to this office action. The WMF have lately been expanding their powers within Wikimedia websites, which wouldn't have been an issue if they were actually accountable to the volunteers, but I see many more "Framgates" popping up if it remains difficult to communicate to. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Should WMF take action for harassment or threats happen outside Wikimedia?[edit]

  • Absolutely, completely, and utterly. They do already, for Facebook and email. Disagreements on Wikis can escalate to a point when it becomes completely toxic for one or other of the parties, resulting in a block or ban. To then "take that outside" shows a complete disregard for the collegiality principle of Wikis. Don't rub salt into the wound, and in particular, don't libel. For example, this website] lists me in a section titled "Pedophilia and Bestiality". For the record, I am neither. That website is run by a Wikipedian who edits philosophy articles on the English Wikipedia. Cogent evidence has been made available to WMF T&S. But what do they do about it? Sit on their hands and say "Not our problem". It is their problem by being complicit in that libel. Perhaps they have evidence. I'd love to see it. As a qualified, trained and experienced lawyer, I think I might be able to tear it apart. Meanwhile, WMF owes a duty of care to its most vulnerable contributors, of which they have made me one by not only the above, but also by failing to take any action against ArbCom, who ignored Wikipedia's own policies and couldn't even keep their mailing list confidential, leading to severe mental health issues. I've no doubt they'll come up with some trumped up (!) reason to ban me (bring it on!). I say this: that would not be a wise thing to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Off-wiki I was repeatedly accused of supporting paedophiles, allegations against my real name. Nothing happened, nobody cared because that's "normal" on our projects, you "need to grow a thicker skin" and there are always others that have it worse, as one Arbcom member once advised me. The WMF should be free not only to ban the people that make the allegations, but all those that respond on the same website who have known accounts, and are therefore helping to promote those allegations, even if they are senior "functionaries" on our projects and the original poster is anonymous. If a judge retweets racist rants, just because they didn't write the original, is not a good reason for them to stay in their job sitting in judgement over others. -- (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Off-wiki harassment because of on-wiki issues are essentially just continued abuse. Obviously, proper investigations should occur, we don't want trolls to go around pretending to be other users simply to get someone banned. Every system should be created with the question "How can this be abused?" and unfortunately no system is free of abuse. But off-wiki harassment due to Wikimedia is one of the few spaces where the Wikimedia Foundation should take a more active role. Report, document, and act in all cases, but also never forget to consult. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Desired vs. required[edit]

May I suggest that the document might be greatly improved by distinguishing what is desired of members of the community from what is required in order to remain a member of the community, and that the latter may differ among the requirements for "ordinary" contributors, admins and others with advanced rights, employees of the Foundation, etc.? Also, please take seriously where people here (and doubtless elsewhere) are saying that certain words are so vague as to be ambiguous or even vacuous. Consider better word choices, paraphrases, or even perhaps a glossary if a word is being used as a "term of art" rather than in its ordinary meaning. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Policy against vanishing while still condemning anyone[edit]

Please look at m:Requests for comment/Global policy against vanishing while still condemning anyone and m:Stewards/Elections 2021/Questions#To oversight false vanishing for reasons why a policy against vanishing while still condemning anyone is desirable. I call it false vanishing, which is not even in good standing.--Jusjih (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[]

After what happened in Framgate, I'm not sure anymore that RtV should even exist at all, due to the immense potential of abuse.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Then please also talk at Meta about the right to vanish. What was Framgate?--Jusjih (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[]
It was a conflict between the WMF's T&S and Wikipedia over a case of harassment that resulted in the victim resorting to courtesy vanishing. Leading to even more harassment. See Wikipedia:FRAMGATE. A word of caution: It is very likely not going to make you feel better. Vexations (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, you can read up on the parts that haven't been revdel'd. Regardless what end of the enforcement spectrum you stand on, it's not going to make you feel good. It was a bad outcome for everyone, and has deepened the mistrust between w:en and W?F. But we should still be talking about it because it directly relates to the current phase of formulating UCoC Enforcement policy. Fram was given an Office warning for allegedly harassing that specific person. Then later he was denounced to T&S by multiple secret people who were totally not acting in cahoots, and banned for secret reasons. And because it was all secret, the speculation and digging started. The now-vanished person was working for the Australian Paralympic Committee to churn out stubs, though they denied being paid. They were also allegedly in a close personal relationship with a WMF board member, raising serious questions of W?F mis-governance. But we can’t talk about that because in the process of criticising the Foundation, we're also putting an individual's personal life under the microscope. Folks (non-Wikimedians) were showing up at Wikipediocracy claiming to have previously worked or had personal relationships with the person and saying exactly what they thought of them. The now-vanished person used their real life name as their username: anyone could go to the APC site and see her listed; there were records on Meta of travel grants, photos of her having dinner with the board member – some of that information may since have disappeared. Office actions are meant to be signed off at the highest levels, yet no-one at W?F put 2+2 together and predicted what effect their non-transparent star-chamber actions would have. There were other factors at play, for example Fram had been a critic of the WMF so a Foundation action to make them disappear wasn't a good look. They’d also had run-ins with some other high-profile people who may have been glad to see them go. But that is aside from the vanishing aspect. I don’t think having her user name scrambled partway through the process made much difference, in this case the damage was already done. Pelagic (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[]

The community consultation is closing soon[edit]

Hello all,

Many of you extensively participated in this consultation to make this one successful. I just want to inform you that, the Commons consultation will close as planned by the end of February. Therefore, I request you to participate in any points you think are useful and relevant. Based on the feedback you all provided there are specific questions that we feel are important regarding enforcement, reporting, and peer support. I hope you will keep engaging in these important contexts to establish an effective UCoC enforcement pathway. Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Well I hope WMF T&S get the message loud and clear that everything they've done in relation to myself is utterly and completely wrong. No due process, no right of reply, no redress of injustice and worst of all, no proportional response to off-wiki abuse. I hope none of them possess mirrors. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]
That's a very clear response, Rodhullandemu. You might want to consider participating in #What is the expected role of WMF regarding UCoC enforcement? section? Thanks. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]
We still haven't had anyone so much as clarify the ambiguities in the first paragraph! What sort of consultation is that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]
On Consultation, a true story. A decade ago the 1920s cinema at the end of our road had been bought by a developer. They wanted to demolish it and build housing for the local hospital. Initial plans were terrible, they were going to cheaply build a bed-sit complex using 100% of the land, previously only about 40% used by the buildings, where professional renting nursing staff would effectively have a student room with a miniature bathroom in a 4 story high maze of similar rooms. The hospital would contract the lease for 20 years, so guaranteed money. The council had several months of consultation, and publicly reported on it. Over 86% of the local residents firmly objected to the plans. As a result the developer adapted, so existing trees at the perimeter would be kept, and the building would have a stone-clad finish.
Two months later, the trees were chopped down, by "accident", there's only a £500 maximum fine for that which was never actually charged anyway, and the stone cladding never happened, no doubt it was never purchased. The rooms are just depressing low quality bedsits, as on the original plan.
What was the point of consultation? Easy, the council can tick the box of public engagement, and the developer can also tick the box of doing the legal minimum.
This is what consultations do. If you don't like this consultation, perhaps you don't think the issues raised will actually change anything, you can try raising a RFC for the community. That way you get to phrase exactly the question or issue and the WMF may want to listen if a couple of hundred folx respond to it. -- (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@: As Lou Reed put it, "Haven't got the time-time." If someone would engage me in good faith, I'd be glad to help out. Otherwise, not where I'm expending effort. - Jmabel ! talk 07:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Questions to Wikitanvir (WMF)[edit]

We still have a few more days, I actually have some questions. Others can also add theirs. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Donald Trung, thanks for asking the questions. While I'm responsible for running this consultation, it's not up to me to choose/decide how UCoC can/will be enforced on Commons or anywhere around Wikimedia. I do appreciate all questions, and these questions will be forwarded to the drafting committee as concerns/recommendations raised by the community, but I personally don't decide anything, nor that I'm capable of answering all the questions. Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wikitanvir (WMF): , well, you are an individual person with your own opinions on the matter, I am somewhat curious to them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wikitanvir (WMF): Well, like it or not, and perhaps it hasn't turned out the way you expected, but you do have a (WMF) username. That means you have the nexus to WMF that mere mortals are denied. I would love to see your final analytical report to WMF, perhaps not so much as it includes, but what it omits. You presumably have a clear remit. But it would be irresponsible as an objective researcher to ignore the surrounding issues. That was something I had to deal with as a Research Fellow at the University of York in the late 1980s when I was tasked to analyse survey responses into mature students and catering services on campus, neither of which survey I had been invited to design. An uphill struggle, as you may now realise. So it's not your fault that you've been handed a poisoned chalice with so many preconceptions. I wish you well with your next piece of work. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

How do you envision UCoC breaches to be enforced?[edit]

If a sanctioned (only UCoC sanctions and no "community" sanctions) user wants to appeal after disappearing for five years, how and where can they appeal?[edit]

They can/should appeal the same body which imposed the sanction.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Will UCoC violations on other Wikimedia websites affect Wikimedia Commons? If so, how?[edit]

  • So do I:

In what way, if at all, is WMF exempt from the general legal requirement to act fairly in conduct matters?[edit]

Q; Why should it be? Nobody else is, except in cases of national security. Wikimedia is nothing to do with national security. I hope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Does a failure to act fairly render conduct decisions made at any level (a) void or merely (b) voidable?[edit]

Obviously I know the answer to this English Law, which is the jurisdiction in which I qualified.

Who is the final arbiter of fact as to whether conduct is sanctionable, given the vagueness of a Universal Code?[edit]

Clearly the WMF is disqualified from judging in its own cause, by the general principles of fairness that apply in all Common Law jurisdictions. So you disagree with the WMF's decision - where do you go? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you[edit]

Hello everyone,

As the consultation has ended, I would like to thank all of you for an engaging discussion. You have been very active till the last day of consultation. Your feedback as a member of a highly diverse community is very valuable for creating the enforcement pathways. We got a variety of feedback from fellow community members including support, doubts, questions, and concerns regarding the policy text and its implementation. Most importantly, I would like to thank you for the questions you raised and the ideas you have provided. Although I don’t have answers to all the questions right now, I think the questions are important and will be considered by the drafting committee. Among many others, I liked the ideas regarding the reporting system and the balance between privacy and transparency in sensitive situations. Rest assured that this feedback will be relayed to the body that will be responsible for creating the enforcement mechanism.

Future announcements and developments regarding UCoC will be announced in multiple channels including UCoC main page on Meta-Wiki. There will be a public report on this discussion as well which I will notify the community once published.

Thank you again for your participation. Stay safe!

Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Well thank you for trying your best with a poorly-scoped and badly-worded endeavour which was bound to stir up a hornet's nest- that's not your fault, it's just that WMF at any level seem to be completely clueless as to how Wikimedia projects work at ground level, unaware of how valuable and valued their volunteer contributors are and should be, for without us they would be unemployed. Sadly, they imagine they are somehow exempt from the rules of fairness that apply in any civilised, liberal society. China, Russia, Burma, North Korea, UAE and Saudi Arabia we are not. We should be setting an example for justice, fairness and tolerance. We are not. There's no excuse for it, and it's just wrong, and misguidedly wrong. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]

So what's the bottom line here?[edit]

  • 1. If you're going to consult with your constituent communities, you should have at least the courtesy to present a coherent set of questions and proposals. We are not idiots. We have standards, otherwise we wouldn't bother to contribute here.
  • 2. WMF should be desperately aware of its own failings, of which there are apparently many which have been highlighted here and, I suspect, elsewhere. This seems to me to arise from the proposition that "it's our servers, so we say what happens on them". Well, Up to a point, Lord Copper. But you don't do that by acting unfairly and unlawfully. You don't do it by treating constructive contributors with contempt. You should respect them, and do right by them, because you need them. And so do your donors.
  • 3. That's all for now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[]