Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Jährliche Revision/UCoC (Revision 2025)

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/UCoC review 2025 and the translation is 100% complete.


Other languages:
Koordinationskomitee des Universellen Verhaltenskodex (U4C)

Diese Seite dient der Sammlung und Diskussion möglicher Änderungen am Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). Jeder ist eingeladen, Kommentare oder Vorschläge zur Revision zu machen.

Vorgeschlagene Änderungen

Hinweis: Bitte schlagen Sie alle Änderungen so einfach wie möglich und mit Ihrer Unterschrift vor. Sie können Ihre Vorschläge und Kommentare in jeder Sprache verfassen. Längere Überlegungen oder Erklärungen können als Antwort beigefügt werden.

Translation issues


Content

Why we have a Universal Code of Conduct

  • Change: "We believe in empowering as many people as possible to actively participate in Wikimedia projects and spaces, to reach our vision of a world in which everyone can share in the sum of all human knowledge."
    To: "We want to foster a culture that welcomes as many people as possible to participate in Wikimedia projects".
    Rationale: "Reaching a vision" is nonsense. You have a vision, accomplish a mission, and reach a goal. There is no need to repeat what the vision or mission is, just link to it. Vexations (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "We believe our communities of contributors should be as diverse, inclusive, and accessible as possible."
    To: "We believe that there should be no barriers to entry for people who want to contribute".
    Rationale: "diverse" is a fraught term, code for "a person who is not WEIRD (White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic)", "accessible community" is technical jargon for not having barriers to entry (for people who have a physical limitation, for example). This is a bit of a problem by the way: our use of captchas makes it harder for people with visual impairments to participate. Using buzzwords like diverse and inclusive is exclusionary. Not everybody will be able to fully understand what they mean, especially when they are not North-American. Vexations (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "We want these communities to be positive, safe and healthy environments for anyone who joins (and wants to join) them."
    To: "Joining us should be a positive experience. The health and safety of the members of our communities shall not be compromised."
    Rationale: "(wants to join)" suggests that there are people who would join us, but can't or won't, because they perceive our communities as unwelcome. Stop pushing that narrative. Also: firmly commit to keeping people safe instead of waffling about what we would like. We will keep you safe. No compromises. Vexations (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Change: "We are committed to ensuring that it remains so, including by embracing this Code of Conduct and revisiting for updates as needed."
    To: "We will review this code of conduct in the first two weeks of March each year, and revise it per the consensus established at this talk page".
    Rationale: "We are committed to ensuring that it remains so, " should be removed, because it is unclear what "it" refers to. I don't particularly care when we review the UCoC, but we need something that is more explicit than what we have now, which appears to be that the WMF wants to use the current text with the now sanctioned enforcement guidelines for a a year to see how that goes and then maybe revise it. Vexations (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "Also, we wish to protect our projects against those who damage or distort the content."
    To: ""
    Rationale: Unacceptable behaviour causes harm to people, processes and content. We should address all of them. But "damage" is not a problem. We're running a wiki. We break things all the time. Mistakes are easily fixed, and we fully expect new editors to make mistakes and learn from them. We shall not penalize people for making mistakes. Vexations (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "In line with the Wikimedia mission, all who participate in Wikimedia projects and spaces will: "
    To: "In line with the Wikimedia mission, all who participate in Wikimedia projects shall:"
    Rationale: Link to the mission statement. Remove "space", because participating in a space is not a thing. If you're going to tell people they must do something, use the less ambiguous "shall" in stead of "will". Vexations (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Remove: "Help create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".
    Rationale: We're volunteers, we cannot be required to "help create a world". If all someone wants to do is fix typos or revert vandalism, that's still fine. Vexations (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "Be part of a global community that will avoid bias and prejudice, and Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work"
    Rationale: This is trying to be one sentence, but does it poorly. "its" refers to "a global community". The complete sentence would have been something like: "When you join, you become a member of a community that avoids bias, aims for accuracy and requires verifiability." What appears to be expected is some sort of affirmation: "I will strive to be accurate". But this phrasing doesn't do that. Just get rid of it. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "This Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. "
    To: "This Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is a behavioural policy. It sets expectations and defines and prohibits behaviour that the communities find unacceptable."
    Rationale: Guidelines are distinct from policy. This is policy, not a guideline. Singular, not plural. Also, "defines a minimum set of guidelines" doesn't make any sense. Perhaps minimal or minimalistic, in stead of minimum. Neither does "guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour" make sense. What on earth is a guideline of behaviour? Say "guideline for", not "of". But a guideline for unacceptable behaviour, what is that? A how-to-vandalize-Wikipedia? Vexations (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "It applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces."
    To: "This Universal Code of Conduct applies to all participants in Wikimedia projects and events"
    Rationale: Interacts is too broad. Someone who merely reads something on a Wikipedia project should not be subject to Wikimedia behavioural policy in addition to the Terms of Use. The "spaces" thing is confusing. I have no idea what a Wikimedia space is. Just say event. Vexations (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "This includes new and experienced contributors, functionaries within the projects, event organizers and participants, employees and board members of affiliates and employees and board members of the Wikimedia Foundation."
    Rationale: We just said "everyone", and then make a completely unnecessary distinction between new and experienced editors. "Everyone" obviates the need to enumerate. The use of "this" is confusing, lacks a referent. Vexations (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "It applies to all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as well as the following instances:
    To: "This Universal Code of Conduct will be enforced at all Wikipedia projects and events".
    Rationale: Avoid using "it". Confusing use of "applies": First we said it applies to people, now we say it applies to things. Are the those things required to follow a behavioural policy? Of course not. The first use "applies to people" means that a rule or policy has relevance to people, and they must follow that rule. The second use "applies to spaces" means a rule will be enforced in that space. So make that distinction clear. Vexations (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "Private, public and semi-public interactions"
    Rationale: "Private interactions" should not be categorically subject to possible sanctions. It is one thing to prohibit unwelcome sexual advances in the elevator of the hotel at Wikimania (of course that's reason to be thrown out), but this wording is too broad, because it includes everything anyone ever says about a Wikimedia community member, anywhere, even if no harm is done. Vexations (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "Discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community members"
    Rationale: It is unclear what an "expression of solidarity across community members" is, and why it should be subject to a behavioural policy. Is expressing solidarity <with> other community members required? If it is, it shouldn't be. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "Aspects of content contribution"
    Rationale: This is too vague. WHICH aspects? We're trying to say the the UCoC applies to people who edit Wikimedia projects, and also while editing? Vexations (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "Cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners"
    Rationale: There is nobody who "represents communities with external partners", and whoever they are (board members of affiliates?, members of the hypothetical global council?) they are already subject to the UCoC. Vexations (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it for the introduction. You may have noticed that I think that every single sentence in the introduction needs to be revised or removed, but I didn't point out yet that the title of the intro also needs a rewrite because it says: "Why we have a Universal Code of Conduct", but doesn't explain that at all. The explanation should probably be something like this: "We have difficulties attracting new editors because the culture is so toxic and dominated by a certain demographic that people from under-represented groups either leave quickly or don't join at all. If only we had a way to get rid those toxic editors, then we would live up to our full potential." Vexations (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase: "We believe in empowering as many people..." "empowering" in this case is PR-jargon that'll be out of fashion and incomprehensible in twenty years anyway. You empower an ambassador with the ability to negotiate a new trade deal, but you motivate someone to do something. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


1 Introduction

  • Change: "The Universal Code of Conduct provides a baseline of behaviour for collaboration on Wikimedia projects worldwide."
    To: "This Universal Code of Conduct is a conduct policy that requires and prohibits certain behaviours. These are listed below as either expected or unacceptable. Expected behaviours are desired, but not required. Unacceptable behaviours are prohibited."
    Rationale: "a baseline of behaviour for collaboration" is not something an enthusiastic 13-year old of above-average intelligence can parse. What we meant was probably something like: "You need to at least exhibit (some) expected behaviours, and not (any) undesirable behaviours". Vexations (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "Communities may add to this to develop policies that take account of local and cultural context, while maintaining the criteria listed here as a minimum standard."
    To: "Communities are encouraged to set their own (local) behavioural policies. Local policies take precedence over the UCoC. Where the local and universal behavioural policies disagree, the local policy shall prevail".
    Rationale: The UCoC was (supposedly) created to help smaller communities that lack the resources to develop their own policies.[citation needed] If those communities can create policies that serve their needs better than the UCoC, then they should use their own policies per the principle of subsidiarity. If there is anything in the UCoC hat goes beyond what they need, the UCoC is not a proper minimum universal standard, and -it- should be amended, not the local policy. Note: this is more than a rewrite, this is a radically different approach. Vexations (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly disagree with this. Medium to small-sized projects are especially susceptible to being controlled by a small group of like-minded individuals. There is a significant risk that these individuals will dominate the project, shape local guidelines to reflect their worldviews, and drive away contributors with diverse perspectives. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "The Universal Code of Conduct applies equally to all Wikimedians without any exceptions."
    Rationale: We're repeating what we said above, but now we say the UCoC applies to "all Wikimedians", without defining what a Wikimedian is. Is it "new and experienced contributors, functionaries within the projects, event organizers and participants, employees and board members of affiliates and employees and board members of the Wikimedia Foundation"? Vexations (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: "Actions that contradict the Universal Code of Conduct can result in sanctions".
    To: "The UCoC will be enforced by helping people avoid, improve and remediate unacceptable behaviour."
    Rationale: Do not threaten people with punishment if you want them to join your group. I don't want to be a member of a club that wants to punish me. Note: in stead of "remediate", we could say (provide a) remedy (for). Vexations (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Remove: "These may be imposed by designated functionaries (as appropriate in their local context) and/or by the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms".
    Rationale: See above. Do not punish people. If we are going to punish people, then at least change it to "Sanctions may be imposed ...", so we know what "these" refers to. Explain what functionaries are and who does the designating. Specify WHO at the WMF can do these things: Any WMF employee? Trust & Safety? Paid 3rd party moderators? Vexations (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field".
    Rationale: First we say "all", and then we enumerate what "all" includes. That invites people to find exceptions: "But, you didn't mention hair colour". Don't open it up to ambiguities. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: "Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement."
    Rationale: We do this all the time! We HAVE to make exceptions. We limit access to some tools to people who are competent and trusted. That is making exceptions based on skill and standing. If we leave this in anyone could demand that they be given templateeditor or edit filter manager or interface administrator rights. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


2 Expected behaviour

  • Value both civility and scholarly inquiry Jaredscribe Based on this comment posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be should be founded in civility, scholarly inquiry, logical discourse, collegiality, respect for verifiable truth and for eachother. solidarity and good citizenship."

    These changes are proposed for the reasons stated by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics to justify his abandonment of the Platonic w:theory of forms: While both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends. --Book I chapter 6, 1096a.16. But the phrase as currently formulated in the official UCoC neglects to mention scholarly discourse, inquiry, or logic as valuable behaviors. It offers instead 5 synonyms for civility, which taken together may be used to imply and enforce "compliance" with a group consensus, which would be a recipe for w:groupthink. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Copied from foundation wiki[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Change: "Every Wikimedian, whether they are a new or experienced editor, a community functionary, an affiliate or Wikimedia Foundation board member or employee, is responsible for their own behaviour."
    To: "You are responsible for your own behaviour".
    Rationale: That still sounds like a cliché from an evangelical self-help book, but at least it avoids enumerating what "every" is. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship".
    To: "Don't be an asshole." or, if we can't do that, to: "Leave people with their dignity intact. Respect your differences. Try to work together. Accept consensus."
    Rationale: The foundation of behaviour is probably biology. It is not "founded" in respect. "Good citizenship" is an incredibly loaded (and classist) term. Avoid it. Solidarity is not required. We don't all have the same objectives. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Rephrase: "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without exceptions based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field." If someone picks the wrong words because English is their second, third, or fourth language and offends someone because of it, are they then violating the UCoC? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2.1 – Mutual respect

  • Examine "Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you. Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian" - KevyKevTPA Based on this comment posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Change: "We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others. In communicating with people, whether in online or offline Wikimedia environments, we will treat each other with mutual respect."
    To: "Avoid making people feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. If someone asks you to stop what you're doing to them, stop."
    Rationale: To respect someone can mean a lot of different things to different people. It can mean to have esteem, consider someone to be worthy of high regard. That's bound to elicit the retort that respect needs to be earned. But to respect someone also means to agree to not do anything to that makes them uncomfortable, such as not touching them when they did not ask to be touched. In the context of conduct, the first meaning is useless, but the second is useful. It is that sense of "respecting someone's boundaries" that we can find practical advice. To respect someone then means to refrain from interfering with them in a way that makes them uncomfortable. Don't suggesting that we should all to consider everyone worthy of high regard, because we don't actually do that. Vexations (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Change: "Practice empathy. Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you. Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian."
    To: Listen and try to understand what people tell you. Adjust your behaviour accordingly.
    Rationale: We cannot require that people practice empathy. Not everybody is able to vicariously experience the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another person without having those feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner. Vexations (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Change: "Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits; your contributions should improve the quality of the project or work.
    To: Assume that people contribute to to Wikimedia projects to make them better.
    Rationale: The meaning of "Good faith" is not universally understood or unambiguous. This is clearer.
  • Change: "Provide and receive feedback kindly and in good faith.
    To: Assume that contributions that are not improvements are well-intended. Assume that criticism of your contributions is intended to help you.
    Rationale: Avoid use of "good faith". You cannot "receive feedback in good faith".Vexations (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Change: "Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner".
    To: Tell people how they can do better in stead of telling them that they doing something wrong.
    Rationale: This is simpler.Vexations (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion of this idea here
  • Change: "All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact."
    To: Good intentions are not a valid excuse for harmful content.
    Rationale: This is simpler. Vexations (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible."
    Rationale:There will be instances where someone's religious or cultural beliefs prevent them from referring to someone how that individual may want to be referred to. There are alternative legitimate beliefs that should also be respected which lie outside of the very liberal view which the UCoC defines.
    The current text provides no leeway at all. If a contributor wanted to use gender neutral pronouns to refer to someone whose preferences were known they couldn't as the UCoC is so strictly worded. If this hand-tying for instance causes a conservative christian to no longer contribute, then that isn't very inclusive.
    It would seem the way to address this problem is to define what 'technically' means. Does 'technically' refer to writing or language problems, or does the meaning include (or could be expanded to include) other 'technicalities' such as religious or cultural? (With published specific remedies, such as gender neutrality. to avoid using religion as a broad defence)
    Addressing the cultural point. An individual may go by a name that another individual finds offensive. The current UCoC text again has no leeway or remedy, forcing the contributor to use the term they find offensive.
    If reworded too specifically or not specific enough, this could become a Pandora's box. I believe that it's feasible to achieve some more clarity, leeway and inclusivity without risk to the inclusivity the text currently protects Zindor (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The obvious alternative however is to just leave the ambiguity in the UCoC and let those responsible for moderation deal with exceptional circumstances as they arise. This however offers no protection to potential affected users, and bestows de facto power on this matter to administrators, instead of that authority being drawn from the UCoC. Zindor (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that ambiguity should be eliminated. I would rather it be changed to say something like (Twi) This clarifies that, if someone uses the pronouns "xe/xir", I will not be punished for referring to them by the English singular gender-neutral pronouns "they/them/their". I agree that, as written, the UCoC doesn't accommodate those who, while they personally disagree, would be happy to use only gender neutral pronouns. If I want to only use gender neutral terms to describe someone, or as an example in Spanish only want to use masculine terms as default rather than use the @ symbol to refer to both genders, I should be able to do so. Note that in Spanish, there is great debate over whether using the @ is merely a preference or is linguistically appropriate – the general consensus is that masculine terms can be gender neutral so long as they aren't used to intentionally misgender someone. Hence why linguistically and technically is the appropriate term. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that there should be safe neutral terms. Someone could invent a word consisting of say 100'000 letters and insist that to be used instead of "user". What to do then? Taylor 49 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove or clarify: "People may have names that use letters, sounds, or words from their language which may be unfamiliar to you;" This is an odd one out: the other items on this list are about people using different words to describe themselves than you expect– this one includes letters and sounds for some reason. I don't see how this example provides much benefit. So some users will have Thai characters in their name or something. Yes, I could predict that. We don't need to cover every possible example in this list of examples. I'm probably expressing this badly, but the whole list rather baffles me, and this item especially, because they're all statements of the utterly obvious. This one especially: we don't need to specify that people may find sounds they are unfamiliar with, it's kind of silly. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2.2 – Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship

3 Unacceptable behaviour

  • Change: The Universal Code of Conduct aims to help community members identify situations of bad behaviour.
    To: The Universal Code of Conduct is designed to help community members prevent, identify, and remedy unacceptable behaviour.
    Rationale: The code itself doesn't aim. You cannot say that a text "wants to do something". Its authors do. It was created (designed) to make something easier: Identifying certain behaviours. To use "situations of" when referring to bad behaviour is unnecessary. Replace bad with unacceptable. Vexations (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3.1 – Harassment

  • Change: This includes any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome.
    To: Harassment is conduct that is directed at and offensive to another person that is, or ought reasonably to be, known to cause offence or harm.
    Rationale: We shouldn't have to consider whether a harasser intended to upset someone. They could argue that they didn't mean to upset anyone. (using the "just joking" defence). The "reasonable person" is normative in this case. Vexations (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify : "Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects."
    Question: If someone publishes private information, such as their name, e.g. under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, does that imply they have consented to its sharing? LD (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically you do NOT publish private information under a free license. If someone accidentally uploads an image containing eir private information to Commons, then the image should get either deleted or censored quickly. A user who copied the accidentally published private information and spreads it is guilty of DOXING. If you pick a username same as the name in your passport, then you presumably agree to sharing of it. Taylor 49 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence

3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects

  • Clarify: "The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation" I like this, but I don't understand what "unmotivated" means here, and it seems unnecessary. Surely there's some motivation, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
  • Also, shouldn't an editor's own userspace be exempt from this? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


General discussion

  • The above represents changes that I could find for 2022-present. The fact that we have 3 years of substantive not considered comments for the charter really shows. There's a lot there – and that's true even if we remove the huge rewrite suggested by Vexations. As a member of the global Wikimedia community, it is very important to me the community feedback on the UCoC be considered. As a member of the U4C, it's much less clear how changes to the UCoC as part of the annual review are supposed to work compared to the Enforcement Guidelines (EG) and Charter, given the board's reluctance to date to allow any sort of community ratification (see bullet point 1). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no further interest in participating in any discussions regarding the UCoC. I am still firmly opposed to wording of the UCoC, and I should probably just close my account, for I will not abide by it. I herewith give permission to anyone to remove anything I've ever written on any Wikimedia project, in case that is somehow required. All the best, Vexations (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barkeep49 I didn't realize that I was going to be looking over comments from 2022 here. I didn't look at all of Vexations' comments, but the ones I did see, I agree with. Particularly that weird phrase "defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour"--that's still in here? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Drmies everything Vexations suggested changes for remains in the UCoC. The only substantive change since it was originally approved by the board was removing some language about race. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referenzen


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Annual_review/UCoC_review_2025/de&oldid=28174149"