Universal Code of Conduct Facilitator

I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is the account I use for edits or statements I make in that role. However, the Foundation does not vet all my activity, so edits, statements, or other contributions made by this account may not reflect the views of the Foundation.

My current project involves facilitating discussions about the Universal Code of Conduct policy draft, especially in relation to enforcement and conflict resolution. You can share feedback with me here on my talk page, via email, or at a community venue by adding a notification.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § UCOC Survey. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note Barkeep49, I replied there. Feel free to keep advising me here of other local discussions! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Movement Strategy and Governance Facilitator

My current major projects involve facilitating discussions about the Universal Code of Conduct and the Movement Charter. You can share feedback with me here on my talk page, via email, or at a community venue by adding a notification. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robertjamal12, EpicPupper, Ruby D-Brown, Ace2468, and Eric0892: Thanks for volunteering to get the word out about the ongoing election. The campaign period is now open, and the candidates have begun answering selected community questions and participating in various campaign events. There are a number of meet the candidates events planned: any thoughts about a meeting for local users? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robertjamal12, EpicPupper, Ruby D-Brown, Ace2468, and Eric0892: As an update, I'm facilitating one of the upcoming meetings mentioned at the village pump. Please help spread the word. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The poll, contrary to your post at VPP, has already closed. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for the report DuncanHill: it appears the jump polls didn't get updated with the votewiki change. That's now been fixed and you should be able to access the vote locally Special:SecurePoll/vote/802 or via m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, worked for me. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reading. Xeno (WMF) 02:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Xeno. I see you're asking (above) for more feedback on people's reactions to the UCOC. You and I have bumped into each other for ages, and I know you're a good person to talk with about these things. I'm not sure where to start, but I'll give this my best shot. It's been a very long time since I've blocked anyone or deleted an article (apart from WP:G7), but I still need the admin toolkit ... I was a TFA coordinator for 7 years and, from time to time, I still need to edit protected TFA stuff that's currently on the Main Page. The "affirmation" requirements of the UCOC are my biggest concern ... what do you think is going to wind up being required? I'm happy of course to sign on to general principles of fairness, and more than happy to hand off anything that's even slightly problematic to people who know more about these things than I do. I get why "training" may become important, but I think we all need some time to figure out exactly what it is that people need to be trained to do before we push training too hard. But the tone on "affirmations" is wrong ... I'm not willing to do anything that feels like pledging allegiance. That wouldn't sound like me, at all. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dank, good to see you - thanks for dropping by! I appreciate you sharing your concerns with me. First, a big ole disclaimer: While I was originally worked for T&S Policy as a Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Facilitator, I'm now a facilitator on the m:Movement Strategy and Governance team. So while my team supports T&S Policy with community engagement, we're not quite as close to the ground as the folks on that team. That said, I know a lot about the UCoC project and can provide a probably-useful off-the-cuff reply, and seek for further information if needed.

Right now, the form the affirmations should take has not been discussed (to my knowledge), since it's only in recommendation form and didn't yet move towards implementation. (I can think of examples of other 'affirmations': phab:L37 is as simple as checking a box and submitting an identifying handle to phabricator - and when I signed the access to non-public information agreement as a prospective member of the arbitration committee pseudonymously as "xeno", it was and remains totally fine. We also affirm the Terms of Use [along with subsidiary documents like the Licensing Policy] on each edit we submit - and the UCoC FAQ seems to indicate the code will be subsidiary to the ToU.)

The training as well remains similarly undefined. I know a number of other contributors were concerned about the affirmation and training recommendations, among other things (after all, I submitted their feedback =).

So where are we now? Following the community vote, the Board asked for the guidelines document to be sent back for further revisions.

So we are waiting to see what forms these things take in the new revisions, which will be for another community vote. If you have any additional specific input on those points, I would be happy to submit that for the drafting committee's attention and consideration. I hope this helps clear things up, though feel free to let me know if you have any additional questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also - if you're available, I'm helping facilitate a conversation with Maryana Iskander (Wikimedia Foundation's new CEO). I know she would benefit if you would share your thoughts, institutional memory, and ideas on how the Foundation can better serve the volunteer population in the upcoming year. This will be on Wednesday at 17:30 UTC; see m:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2022-2023/Conversations for the Zoom link (sometimes subject to change!) and other details. Of course, feel free to pop into one of the other conversations if you're interested and the timing on the 27th doesn't work for you. All the best, Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks kindly for the invite ... I've got doctors' appointments this week, but I'll try to tune in soon. Feel free to pass on what I said above to the relevant people if you think that's a good idea; should I add anything? - Dank (push to talk) 11:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank: Ah, hppe it goes well - I think it should be recorded if you're interested. As far as adding anything (again, all off-the-cuff): I guess if you felt that one-or-the-other type of acknowledgement of the code would be okay (e.g. acknowledging that "you've read the code and won't violate the basic expectations" is okay, signing that "you will always step in to enforce it precisely as written: bar none, context be damned" is not), or that this-or-that type of training would be reasonable (after all, there is a wide range of training that have been spoken about: from reading a wiki page, to going through a training module, to completing an online interactive course, to attending an admin's retreat... that last one may have been tongue-in-cheek!). Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Healthwise, the odds are in my favor and I'm not too worried. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The UCOC says that behaviors should be "founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship ... 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." I've made well over 100k edits in my 14.5 years on the English Wikipedia, and I think I can make a case based on my edits that that's been my position all along, but I'm open to talking it over if someone thinks otherwise. I'm also willing to read over any training materials that anyone wants to provide, and to think about whether I need to update my understanding of the relevant issues. That's roughly all I'm prepared to give; the whole time I've been editing, I've made it clear that I prefer not to get involved in contentious enforcement matters ... other Wikipedians are more interested in these things than I am, and they do a better job with it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not pushing this, and definitely not in a hurry, but it would be a relief to know at some point if this position is going to be enough to count as "compliance" among the people who care about such things. If you find out, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From my reading, I imagine that will be fine Dank - there's nothing in the guidelines that compels individual administrators to participate in enforcement if they're not interested in doing so. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that helps a lot. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, continuing from here: Xeno, our gut feeling is that it's too soon for the RfC you're proposing. I'm not sure when the time would be right ... but it's not now. The main problem is that the current affirmation language under discussion (here, AFAIK) is "The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct." Just a suggestion: ask the people who like this language (publicly, privately, whatever) what they would do if they had to make a choice between weakening the language to just "I've read it" (without mentioning adherence), or allowing more time for the English Wikipedia community to develop the language into something that we can get behind, on our own pages and in ways that feel familiar to us. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC) (Or if there's a better place for me to raise my concerns, let me know.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For now what I've done is posted to WP:VPP and WP:AN with a pointer to the discussion on Meta-Wiki. You could add your thoughts there: m:UCOCEGRD. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much, I'll just watch what develops for now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank: As a courtesy note - I hope this is alright, I've shared a brief sentence from above (I get why "training" may become important, but I think we all need some time to figure out exactly what it is that people need to be trained to do before we push training too hard.) as an exemplar in a thread on the proposed MS Forum. Barkeep49: I wonder if you wanted to provide additional perspective there? I noticed recent drafting committee summaries mentioned the topic. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get to have a pretty loud voice in this process Xeno. I think it important to leave the MS Forums (and other places) about substantive UCoC comments (vs, say, the process oriented discussion we're having at AN) to those who don't get to do the actual drafting. But I am following the threads there (and have participated in some other discussions). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xeno, I said above that I thought it was too soon for that RfC you're proposing ... but this (reflecting a shift toward voluntary, not mandatory, training) is at least somewhat encouraging, so I withdraw my objection. (I don't have any idea how the RfC would turn out, of course, I'm just saying, things are at least moving in the right direction, so now I don't have a gut feeling one way or the other.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the additional thoughts Dank. I've also been reading the public drafting committee summaries and Barkeep49's individual updates with interest. About a local RfC; it probably now makes sense to wait for a fresh draft. I did provide links on Template:CENT and at a few local venues pointing editors to the Meta discussion. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi. i would like to volunteer to help with publicizing the elections for the board. coudl you please reply, and let me know how to do so? I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sm8900: Thanks for your interest and offer of help! Right now, affiliate representatives are deciding on a set of questions for candidates to answer. The answers will be provided on the MS Forum for ease of reference and translation. After that, affiliate representatives will vote from 1 to 15 July to determine which 6 candidates will move forward to the wider campaign period and community vote at the end of August. See m:BE2022#Timeline. So the best would be for you and others @Election Volunteers: to prepare for campaign period starting in mid-July: think about good ways to inform local editors of the events and opportunity to propose more questions and also statements to be entered into a voting advice application to help people come to a decision on which candidates best align with their views. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RamzyM (WMF) 01:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Senior Committee Support Manager

I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is the account I use for edits or statements I make in that role. However, the Foundation does not vet all my activity, so edits, statements, or other contributions made by this account may not reflect the views of the Foundation.

I oversee staff support functions for several volunteer committees, including Affiliations Committee, Ombuds Commission, Arbitration Committees, and the Case Review Committee. My team works to ensures these groups have access to the support they need to operate smoothly. You can share feedback with me on my talk page, via email, or at a community venue by adding a notification. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

>:Hi, I am searching where and how to file a case. I was searching on Meta where I was not successful, then I found that one here on the English Wikipedia, where I read that a U4C might have to do something with it, but the link there does not lead to somewhere known and works really slow.

You seem rather active in pages relating to the UCOC and maybe you can help me advise me a bit how to make this possible. I was blocked in the German Wikipedia after 8 good faith edits and my unblock request I filed after I noticed difficulties while applying for the Wikipedia Library due to the block, was denied even though I made it rather clear I have no interest in editing in the German wikipedia. Now I again had some sort of difficulties in voting on the UCOC, and I do not want the block anymore and want to file a case. I was OUTED by a former admin in the German wikipedia also at least twice. This evidence I'd prefer to provide per email for now, I actually also do not have an issue with going public but I was a new editor at the time and was outed, harassed (hounded in the English wikipedia for reporting in the German wikipedia for 8 good faith edits is fine example for hounding), and indeffed in the German Wikipedia for 8 good faith edits in the English wikipedia, without me allowing to defend myself. This is not Wikipedia for me and I have no interest in editing in the German wikipedia, but I want to be unblocked so it doesn't interfere on other wikipedia projects (as it did while applying for the TWL, and probably also on other occasions like when voting on the UCOC).Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just saw that you were not really active the last few months. I'll likely search somewhere else as well and update if I found a solution. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

During the Steward elections I was encouraged to perform another unblock request which I have done per email as I can't edit the German wikipedia, but this one was denied rather fast. I also argued with outing, but this doesn't seem to be a violation at the German wikipedia (which I don't believe of course, I see it as a selective appliance of policy). So I'd be glad to know how else we can proceed to so this block doesn't interfere with my editing in other wikimedia projects.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hello,

As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). I invite community members with experience and deep interest in community health and governance to nominate themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who are:

• Community members in good standing
• Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects
• Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
• Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period from mid-May - December 2023
• Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
• Confidently able to communicate in English

The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.

The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills and knowledge of the community and I look forward to what the U4C Building Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee, please either sign up on the Meta-Wiki page, or contact ucocprojectwikimedia.org by May 12, 2023. Read more on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

Xeno (WMF) 18:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Xeno, I see you have been closely involved in the shaping U4C. I have one fundamental question that it is being surprisingly difficult for me to figure out. I see lots of pages and links to deep technical discussion, but I am missing a basic broad overview: Where can I find a page with a basic introduction to the need for this committee? And, where can I find a list of concrete examples of harassment in Wikimedia/Wikipedia, that I assume are the basis for the creation of this Committee? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me hone-in on my question. I see some general explanations in the FAQs. My question is more specifically why harassment has been an issue in Wikipedia/Wikimedia. So I only seek here an answer to my second original question: where can I find a list of concrete examples of harassment in Wikimedia/Wikipedia, that I assume are the basis for the creation of this Committee? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Al83tito: Thanks for reaching out. The Universal Code of Conduct project launched following the 2030 Movement Strategy recommendations (particularly Provide for Safety and Inclusion) and this Board resolution on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces.

This report may also be interesting: it's a summary of consultations that followed an earlier look into the footprint of behavioural policies across multiple Wikipedia languages and other Wikimedia projects. There are deeper dives per language, as well. One of the findings was that participants in smaller communities typically spent more time writing content than actually setting out policies and guidelines for user behaviour. That's to be expected, yet as communities grew the lack of common understanding could present challenges. Creating a Universal Code of Conduct as a base framework avoids communities having to start from scratch as they grow, while setting a consistent expectation for behaviour in the movement.

For examples of the types of harassment that may be encountered by participants on Wikimedia projects, you could refer to meta:Harassment and Wikipedia:Harassment. The m:WikiLearn course Addressing Harassment Online may help provide added context as well. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]