Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Voter information

AccountEligibility tool

The page recommends The AccountEligibility tool can be used to quickly verify basic editor voting eligibility., but https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/63 is for the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This tool doesn't have an entry for the vote of the Revised enforcement guidelines yet (although Pathoschild will surely add it at one point).

Most importantly, that link checks that the users has at least 20 edits between 05 January 2022 and 05 July 2022, whereas this election requires at least 20 edits between 3 July 2022 and 3 January 2023. The other requisites are harder to unfulfill, but someone that edits infrequently enough might have made more than 20 edits in January-July but be a few edits short in July 2022-January 2023, being misled by the tool output thinking they will be able to vote.

Platonides (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I added event 65 for this (see commit). Let me know if there's any issues, and feel free to message or ping me anytime if you need a new event added. —Pathoschild 01:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2023 describes the eligibility over 2022 as "so far" if not met, as if there is a way the extra edit might still turn up. Not hurting my eligibility personally, but seems a bit sloppy. Aliter (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aliter The edit counts are across all wikis, so the eligibility tool fetches your info from each wiki and shows how many total edits it's accumulated towards the rule so far. In other words, so far means for the wikis that have been checked so far in this list. For example, this user has 250 edits on Wikidata and 60 on Commons:

On www.wikidata.org:
   ⚠ [...] (has 250 so far)...
On commons.wikimedia.org:
   ✔ [...] (has 310 so far).

Suggestions are welcome if the wording is unclear. For example, "has 40 edits on this wiki, 290 total so far"? Or "has accumulated 290 edits crosswiki so far"? Ideally we should keep it short for readability though. —Pathoschild 21:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

On 28 January 2023, about 2022? Sure, it may be privacy protection, but it does the impression of being too slow. (Has the speed been tested?) "Counted" for "accumulated" would probably do better for: "may be unfinished". Do the smaller totals matter in any way? Aliter (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about dates and privacy protection. The count won't change over time, since it counts edits before the fixed dates set in the election rules. The per-wiki count is just an idea to avoid confusion between the local edit count and the accumulated total. —Pathoschild 00:34, 01 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong link from the form

Hi,

I'm looking at https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1414 . My user interface language there is Hebrew, which is good. When I click the link "דף העזרה למצביעים" (translated back from Hebrew it's "help page for voters"), it points to Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voter information/he, which is marked as obsolete.

It should probably be fixed.

I'm not sure if it's just Hebrew or also other languages.

FYI: @PEarley (WMF), @JSutherland (WMF), @RamzyM (WMF). Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume this was a mistake in translation. I'll check the translations tomorrow. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This should now be fixed. Apologies! Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Entry point is English-only

My UI language in Meta is Hebrew. Accordingly, I see all the pages with Hebrew UI, and when appropriate, with Hebrew content.

However, the page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/394 , which is the entry point to the voting form, is always shown fully in English: English menus, English text, and English button.

When I click the button, it goes to the form in Hebrew, which is good, but the entry point is English, which is quite odd.

Tagging people who made recent Gerrit commits: @Reedy, @Umherirrender, @Dreamy Jazz, @JSutherland (WMF). Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty strange. The message displayed there is translated and those translations are on votewiki already. I wonder why they're not displaying on Meta-Wiki. Perhaps something to file a bug over. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that this is not even a matter of content appearing in English. The whole page, including the menus, appears in English. The menus are part of the UI and not the content. I suspect that this is a bug in the extension that implements this special page: it seems to force English on everything. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing context

This page does not seem to provide a clear and obvious deception of or link to the substantive content that is being voted upon.

Specifically, the section "What is being voted on?" does not answer that question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that this section does not have a direct link to the Enforcement Guidelines. There is one up higher in the page but it seems like a good idea to add another one in this section too. I added it. Let me know if that does not address your concern. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we need more than a direct link to the Enforcement Guidelines. I would like to be aware of what changes are being proposed before I vote on a thing. Kire1975 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A table of comparison between the current and previous versions of the Enforcement Guidelines is available here, which is on the header template on the top of this page. Do you think it should be made more prominent? RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So this means that you want us to vote on accepting the Changes? Nobody has explained that to me so far. I am still unsure. I already had the impression that you hope we do not vote, although you are obliged to hold a poll. So you made the whole poll unintelligible to scare us away. --Curryfranke (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Eligibility criteria on AccountEligibility tool and on voter information page seem to differ

When I read the voter eligibility criteria on the page:

…

• and have made at least 300 edits before 3 January 2023 across Wikimedia wikis;
• and have made at least 20 edits between 3 July 2022 and 3 January 2023.

(my emphasis) they say to me that the total of edits (in the given period) on all Wikimedia wikis added together should meet the threshold value for that criterium.

However, the AccountEligibility tool evaluates the number of edits on each of the three Wikimedia wikis that I have edited on, and measures them against the thresholds for each wiki separately. On this basis, I qualify on none of the three (90 & 2 on nl.wikipedia.org, 140 & 9 on en.wikipedia.org, and 143 & 9 on commons.wikimedia.org) and thus the tool concludes that my account is not qualified. However, on the totals across the three (90+140+143=373 & 2+9+9=20) I should qualify (I’m neither blocked nor a bot on any of the three).

Now, am I reading the criteria on the voter information page the wrong way, or is the tool applying them incorrectly?

Mithrennaith (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Or … a thought occurs to me … is the tool not stating the totals for each wiki separately, but is it giving ‘running totals’ up to and including that wiki? If so, the wording and/or lay-out of the tool’s report form needs to be changed, as that is not clear at all. Mithrennaith (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't vote either and do have the required edits. Natuur12 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

+ 1 hgzh 21:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

+1, can't vote either... Poslovitch (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF) could you take a look a this? Johannnes89 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@J. Patrick Fischer @Natuur12 @Hgzh @Poslovitch I have added you all manually to the election so you should be able to vote. (For others' reference, I would be grateful if you instead email ucocproject@wikimedia.org if you are having problems.)

This is also tracked in phab:T326408 to get to the bottom of what's going on Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@J. Patrick Fischer @Natuur12 @Hgzh @Poslovitch For the record, the issue was resolved. More details at T327222 Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's running totals, I believe. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So how long will the voting be extended? It's, after all, a massive failure by the WMF and nobody else, they have toi fix this, and of couzrse have to extenbd the voting period until they get their work done. They are paid to serve us, not the other way around. You have millions at you disposal, try for once to use them in a useful way. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm as well not on that list, just tried, so unless you get your thing done, you should stop this voting asap, it's just a sign of total disdain towards the highest entity in the Wikiverse, the users, to go on with this massive blunders. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Well, the issue is fixed now. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF) I have the same problem as described above (total modifications > 300 but on 5 different projects all under 300, and accounteligibility said "Marc wik is not eligible to vote" Marc wik (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You need 300 edits total; looks like your account is just short of that number. Sorry. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

by looking more in detail, I understand that the sentence from accounteligility "has xxx so far" is the cumulative total of the projects analysed so far, I had thought it was the total of each project, indeed the total is not yet 300, thanks for watching it. Marc wik (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election."

Hi. According to [1], I should be able to vote. However, when I click on the "Vote here" Button, I get the message "Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.". I know that @Poslovitch is in the case. What’s the problem? Lepticed7 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added you manually to the election so you should be able to vote. (For others' reference, I would be grateful if you instead email ucocproject@wikimedia.org if you are having problems.) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be grateful, if you did your job and don't try to discourage people from voting with this shitty system. You have millions in you pocket at the WMF and don't manage to get this simple stuff working, but instead waste resources on rejected nonsense like FLOW or such? Get your priorities straight, this is a massive blunder by the WMF, it's its responsibility, and they have more then enough resources for this (if you take them away from nonsense for a while). Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish I had millions in my pocket. :) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my problem. Lepticed7 (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, there seems to be a lot of very suspicious gate-keeping and arbitrary exclusions (masked behind process and civility)-- almost as if organizers want to control the results of this vote on the Rules/Laws and Policing of wiki editors. Adding people individually is just masking greater problems with this process. Just felt this needed to be recorded somewhere. ((A common example of trying to vote, quoted for the record: " --Sorry, you cannot vote. Your account needs to have been registered before 16 January 2023 at 00:00 to vote in this election, you registered on 31 January 2023. --We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list. Please visit the voter help page for more information on voter eligibility and information on how to be added to the voter list if you are eligible.")) --Liberty Miller (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Liberty Miller: hi, to clarify: the voting eligibility criteria for editors are available here, and one can check their eligibility using the AccountEligibility tool. The criteria are no different from the one used in the previous ratification vote (and, in that regard, the two Board of Trustees elections of 2021 and 2022). Voters that are being added manually are those who are eligible to vote, not those who are not eligible but got eligible because they're added to the voter rolls. (And for the record, you are unfortunately indeed not eligible to vote.) RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Reading feedback

Is there a way to see the feedback that has been submitted thus far? I see that they "will be published" once the vote is complete, but I don't see how, as a relative newcomer to the process, I could possibly cast an informed vote without the ability to see what objections have been raised. Is there some other forum where public comment is being collected before/during the vote? Personman (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Personman: I think you have to browse around, e.g. in the navbar Template:Universal Code of Conduct/Navbox, or look at w:Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultation or Talk:Universal Code of Conduct. If you can find a good summary of the arguments for and against, that would be great. Unfortunately the corporate culture of the WMF doesn't seem fully compatible with the idea of what w:wikis are, and those involved don't seem to realise how it would be great to use a wiki to make this vote an informed vote rather than a rubber stamp "difficult to argue against people behaving respectfully" decision. As a logged-in user on en-wikipedia, I didn't even get an alert about the vote. Boud (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like Talk:Universal Code of Conduct is the page for discussion rather than this page. Boud (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the question

The language on this page and on the actual vote page swaps and switches between two different questions. I see the question written as "Êtes-vous favorable à l'application du Code de Conduite Universel sur la base des directives révisées?", which in English is something like "Do you support the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct on the basis of the revised enforcement guidelines?" This, plus the attempted explanations on the page Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Voter information, could either mean:

1. Do you support the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct on the basis of the enforcement guidelines (which happen to have been revised since they were originally proposed)? or
2. Do you support changing the way that the Universal Code of Conduct is implemented by shifting from the earlier version of the enforcement guidelines to the revised version of the enforcement guidelines?

These are two completely different questions. The first question is about support or opposition to the statement of UCOC principles together with the UCOC enforcement guidelines. The second question says that the UCOC is a fait accompli and implies that it is going to be implemented with either the old guidelines or the new ones; the community is given the choice of choosing between the old and the new guidelines.

The result of the vote will be open to eternal debates about interpreting the community's intention: support/opposition to UCOC, or support/opposition to changing the enforcement guidelines. If the dominant vote is "yes", then WMF can interpret it as support for a global UCOC+enforcement; if the dominant vote is "no", then WMF can insist on the interpretation in question 2, meaning yes for UCOC but with the pre-revision guidelines. This is a bit like the votes for the EU "Constitutional Treaty": either vote yes, or if the vote is no, then vote again or shift the vote from people to parliaments.

I understand that many well-intentioned people put in a lot of work on this, but somehow the result is nowhere near the standards that can be expected from a wiki community. Having a major vote on an ambiguous question, where one of the interpretations is that there is no possibility of opposing the UCOC at all, is close to pointless. Boud (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add responses/discussion at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct#Ambiguity in the question, not here, to avoid duplication. That page seems to be where more discussion is actually taking place. Boud (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)