Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review/es
Add topicThis page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review/es.
Please remember to:
Discussion navigation:
|
Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review
[edit] | A Note from the Drafting Committee: Please keep in mind that the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines outlined in this document are iterative, and will continuously be evaluated and evolve with community feedback, along with the Universal Code of Conduct. The committee has also provided questions for the community to think about in regards to this draft. |
'Overview'
[edit]'Preventive work (articles 1 and 2 UCOC)'
[edit]'Responsive work (article 3 UCOC)'
[edit]'Principles for processing and filing of reported cases'
[edit]'Providing resources for processing cases'
[edit]'Types of violations and enforcement mechanism / groups'
[edit]'Recommendations for the reporting and processing tool'
[edit]'Recommendations for local enforcement structures'
[edit]'Recommendations for how to process appeals'
[edit]Open questions for the Community
[edit]Escalation: Where do the complaints go, what instance/body/judge is supposed to process them.
[edit]Regulations for appeal (after the previous question "Where do the complaints go" has been answered).
[edit]Should the U4C committee also decide individual cases or process appeals?
[edit]When should someone be able to initiate an appeal for a UCoC violation?
[edit]What kinds of behavior or evidence would we want to see before granting an appeal?
[edit]Who should handle the appeals process?
[edit]How often should someone be allowed to appeal a UCoC violation decision?
[edit]To what extent should individual Wikimedia projects be allowed to decide how they enforce the UCoC?
[edit]How will people be chosen for the U4C committee?
[edit]- Our current recommended list of users include, but are not limited to: CheckUsers, oversighters, bureaucrats, administrators of local projects, arbitration committee members, Wikimedia Foundation employees, Affiliates, etc.
Should an interim committee be formed while the "U4C" committee is being created?
[edit]Should global conduct committees, such as the Technical Code of Conduct committee, be merged into the proposed U4C?
[edit]Conversaciones en castellano
[edit]Conversación del 11 de septiembre
[edit]- Fecha y hora
- Sábado 11 de septiembre de 2021 a las 15:00 UTC (Haz clic para ver la hora en tu zona horaria).
- Enlace de conexión
La conversación tuvo lugar en Google Meet.
Participantes
[edit]- Participantes de WMAR, WMCO, WMMX, WMVE y Wikimujeres
09-11-2021 Report
[edit]General comments
[edit]- One volunteer commented that local chapters will be able to enforce the UCoC, but it seems unclear how it will be applied in online communities where neither the Foundation nor the chapters are considered legitimate spokespersons. Will the Foundation take over and bypass the community?
- A volunteer can't imagine what will be the process for reporting harassment in the Spanish Wikipedia. Although it has its perfectible things, it would like to see something that exists in other digital platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, where the person reports a content for something severe and in one day the social network bans the account.
- One volunteer believes that the burden of proof must be established in the UCoC, if a person places a complaint, it must be proven that harassment is happening, and there is the protection that the accused must have to it moral integrity if it is ultimately being accused of something that is not true.
- One volunteer believes that there will not be many spurious reports and if there are, it will be a very low percentage, as it is in cases of rape or family violence. This person also pointed out that when we share this information with our communities, we should avoid generalizing about the burden of proof.
- A volunteer commented that there should be a significant amount of participation in how the committee will be integrated; there should be gender diversity. This person believes that there should be a feminist perspective within it, because there is numerous harassment of women in the projects from men.
- Regarding accompaniment, a volunteer commented that the issue of reparation of damages must be heard from the victim; there will be people who want to make their case public, but others will not even want it to be known. This person emphasizes that it is also necessary to work in a system in which people have trust, without trust it will not be possible to establish a useful UcoC.
Enforcement draft
[edit]- On the "U4C Committee", one volunteer argued that they are adopting models and mechanisms very similar to the ones of a social platform without understanding what is also behind those models. Facebook has this committee of 10 experts around the world, which is a bit what we want to generate here, but after that committee of experts, it has 5,000 people behind the implementation guidelines all day long.
- A volunteer commented that it would like to know what the procedure will be for filtering bad faith complaints and how bad faith complaints are named within the EDGR. Hopes that patriarchal concepts will not be used to dismiss "bad faith" complaints.
- Regarding the glossary and characterization, a volunteer commented that in order to avoid positive discrimination, we should not go as far as to characterize each actor that interacts on the platforms. It is better a generality of all humans interacting on the Wikimedia platform.
- On preventive work, one volunteer believes that sysops should have workshops on awareness, bullying, and harassment as part of their training.
- Regarding the responsible work, one volunteer considers that it should include accompanying the person who reports, because this can be emotionally very difficult, something that is done to humanize the process a little.
Comentarios generales
[edit]¿Quieres ayudar a traducir? Traduce los mensajes que faltan.