Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Voter comments report

Following the completion of the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines draft, the guidelines were voted on by 3,097 members of the Wikimedian community. Out of these, 2,290 (76%) participants supported the guidelines as written and 722 (24%) did not support.

Votes were cast from 146 communities, as determined by SecurePoll, with the most responsive communities listed in order: English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese language Wikipedias, Wikimedia Commons, and Meta-wiki. Compared to the first ratification vote in 2022, the number of "No" votes in the 2023 vote declined both in percentage (2022: 40.25% -> 2023: 23.97%) and in total (2022: 945 -> 2023: 722) terms, as detailed in the voting statistics on Meta-wiki.

All respondents to the survey had the opportunity to provide comments regarding the contents of the Enforcement Guidelines draft document. A total of 369 participants left comments in 18 languages, compared to 657 commenters in 27 languages in 2022.

Method for analysis[edit]

Once the volunteer scrutinizers confirmed there were no voting irregularities, the UCoC project team translated the comments into English and grouped the comments into themes.

The translation work was led by the Movement Strategy and Governance team with assistance from other multilingual Wikimedia Foundation staff. The Trust and Safety Policy team categorized the comments into themes, analyzed the results, and composed the report that was shared with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees, the revision drafting committee, and published here on Meta-wiki.

Analysis of voter comments[edit]

The major takeaway from the voter comment analysis is a community expectation that the Wikimedia Foundation would need to continue to take into consideration issues raised about the implementation stage of the UCoC Policy and its Enforcement Guidelines. It also helps set up the UCoC Coordination Committee (U4C). Based on the review of the comments, there are no critical concerns that should restrict the ratification of the UCoC Revised Enforcement Guidelines.

Main themes of voter comments[edit]

Misc: 17 (4.6%)
DEI: 18 (4.9%)
Bureaucracy/autocracy: 23 (6.2%)
Reader Comprehension: 48 (13.0%)
General Positive: 77 (20.9%)
Implementation: 92 (24.9%)
General Negative: 94 (25.5%)

Figure 1: This pie chart represents the distribution of vote comments in 7 main themes.

The themes identified from the comments are (in alphabetical order):

Bureaucracy/autocracy (6.2%)
- This theme primarily revolved around criticism of the bureaucracy/hierarchical approach perceived from the Enforcement Guidelines.
Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) (4.9%)
- This theme addresses concerns about providing either too little protection for minority or disability groups or providing too much protection because of an overemphasis on liberal western values.
General Negative (25.5%)
- This theme provided a space for general/miscellaneous negative comments about the UCoC policy ratification, a perceived usurping of community practices, or other general negative comments.
General Positive (20.9%)
- This theme’s feedback indicates that the UCoC project is beneficial for the community or other comments in general support of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Implementation (24.9%)
- This theme is specifically related to the implementation of the UCoC and EG.
Reader Comprehension (13.0%)
- This theme specifically gave feedback around the difficulty of reading the text, either due to vagueness or feedback on the translation of the Enforcement Guidelines itself.
Miscellaneous. (4.6%)
- Miscellaneous comments were generally neutral comments and topics not related to the UCoC.

The following sections represent breakdowns of each theme listed above and include further descriptions of the themes.

Bureaucracy/Autocracy (6.2%)[edit]

Bureaucracy/Overcomplication/Overregulation of Processes: 10 (43.5%)
Threat to current community processes: 13 (56.5%)

Figure 2: The smaller (red) section of the chart represents the comments related to Bureaucracy. The larger (blue) section of the chart represents threats to community processes.

There are two subthemes within the Bureaucracy/autocracy theme. The subtheme “Threat to current community processes” includes the comments that indicate implementing the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will threaten the current functioning of the Wikimedia community. The “Bureaucracy/Overcomplication/Overregulation of Processes” subtheme includes comments that say the Enforcement Guidelines will add too much complexity.

Find examples below of comments from the subtheme Threat to current community process:

“Everything I don't like about the Foundation: top-down approach, endless discussions, American bias, interference in the work of volunteers, misuse of donors' money... for a result that adds nothing to our already existing rules (at least on the French Wikipedia). Waste of time in my opinion.”
“Quite frankly I think the WMF has forced this through and they've intentionally made community consultation as hard as possible by hosting stuff on Zoom calls and the like instead of on the Wikipedias themselves. Also I think it is unnecessary and would be an impediment to the already functioning rules of the English Wikipedia.”
“Each project should be independent and govern on its own with few exceptions. I'm against global dictatorship and global interference with other projects.”

Find examples below from the Bureaucracy/Overcomplication/Overregulation of Processes subtheme:

“Overregulation!”
“This will do nothing to stop abusive users (who will just create new accounts, or use proxy IPs). But this bureaucratic nightmare will install fear, uncertainty, and doubt in those who combat abuse. Because we are trying to do the right thing. And we have no idea what the right thing is anymore.”
“Bureaucracy monster”

Diversity, equity and inclusion (4.9%)[edit]

Missing protection of minority/disability groups: 7 (38.9%)
Western/US Centered Liberal Political Values: 11 (61.1%)

Figure 3: The larger section (blue) of the pie chart represents Western/US centered liberal political values and the smaller section (red) represents missing protections of minority groups.

The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) theme is divided into two subthemes. One group of comments criticize the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines for being either too Western/United States centric and demonstrate liberal political values. The “Missing protection of minority/disability groups” subtheme comments suggest that protection for neurodiverse or neurotypical people is currently missing from the Enforcement Guidelines and/or do not provide enough protection against misgendering and the use of incorrect pronouns.

Find examples below of comments from Missing protection of minority/disability groups subtheme:

“Disability and neurodiversity should be referred to in the 4.5 of the new UCoC. The current UCoC are just showing the foundation continues its ignorance of UCoC violations to autistic and neurodivergent users and users with physical, psychological and intellectual disabilities.”
“Not enough being done to address racism and stereotypes in wiki content. I'm a person of Asian descent, I'm tired of trying to edit content that pertains to asian people and persons of interest, and it gets reverted due to some white man who thinks they know but they are too racist to know better, and risk turning into an edit war. i'm trying to stop perpetual foreigner racism on wiki, when people edit an article and mention where a asian person comes from, yet in similar articles where the article subject is non asian, it is not mentioned and always assumed he is a us citizen.”
“I already contest the add of "linguistically or technically feasible" about the use of one's pronouns because it's open the door to free misgendenring and respect of pronouns and non binary people can't be enforced with those words. It must be erased from the UCoC. The UCoC had to be clear about non binary people, does it protect them from misgendering or does it permit it, it's not clear.”

Find examples below from Western/United States centric and demonstrate liberal political values subtheme:

“Bureaucracy should be reduced, not multiplied by orders of magnitudes. Also, this enforces stratagems of the Western academic left (self-selected pronouns etc.) that I oppose and that will destroy WP as they destroy every institution the woke revolution takes over.”
“The policy is colonial and forces US liberal values on a world wide organisation in a world in which a majority of people do not hold those values.”

General negative (25.5%)[edit]

Negative Comments about Wikimedia Foundation: 17 (18.1%)
Specific Feedback on UCoC Policy ratification: 27 (28.7%)
Just Negative: 50 (53.2%)

Figure 4: The largest section on this chart represents negative comments not aligned with a specific theme. The other two sections are negative comments about the UCoC policy ratification and perceived imposition on community practices.

The General Negative theme is divided into three subthemes. The largest theme; Just Negative, are comments that stated nonspecific negative opinions. The other two subthemes include negative comments about Specific UCoC Policy ratification and comments that indicate the Wikimedia Foundation Imposition on Community Processes.

Find examples below from the Just Negative subtheme:

“I am opposed to a Universal Code of Conduct as a matter of principle and therefore cannot agree to any enforcement guidelines whatsoever.”
“I view the entire UCoC project as unnecessary and counterproductive.”
“The whole "Universal Code of Conduct" project has not convinced me that it is useful. It will cause harm instead of benefit for the community of Wikipedia authors like me as claimed.”

Find examples below from Specific UCoC Policy ratification subtheme:

“Until the UCoC gains community consensus, attempts to enforce it would not be in accordance with community consensus.”
“While I don't [have] many concerns about the enforcement guidelines, I think it makes more sense to get community consensus through its own Secure Poll vote for the UCoC before the enforcement guidelines vote”
“I support the changes in the guidelines, but oppose the UCoC as a whole. It should have been ratified through a vote, and any local wiki should have been able to veto it.”

Find examples below from Wikimedia Foundation Imposition on Community Processes subtheme:

“Too much centralisation for the benefit of the Foundation, which is a dismantling of the communities.”
“I am not confident that the foundation can do a good job in applying code-of-conduct-type rules across all projects.”

General Positive (20.9%)[edit]

UCoC Project is Beneficial for Community: 11 (14.3%)
Just Positive: 66 (85.7%)

Figure 5: This pie chart is divided into two sections. The larger section(blue) represents positive comments in general. The smaller section (red) of the chart indicates the comments about the benefits of the UCoC for the community.

The General Positive theme is divided into two subthemes. The majority are Just Positive comments that indicate approval of the enforcement guidelines. Another subtheme is comments indicating that the UCoC project is beneficial for the community.

Find examples below from Just Positive subtheme:

“It seems a lot of thought went into the changes being proposed by looking at the comparison (thank you for that!) and it is reassuring that there will be a discussion after one year to see how well these new rules have worked.”
“We have delayed the UCoC for long enough. Let's enact it ASAP.”
“These guidelines are not only well thought out, but truly inspirational! As an early chair of the English Wikipedia Mediation Committee (almost two decades ago), I am so glad to see such a thoughtful and thorough set of guidelines!”

Find examples below from UCoC project is beneficial for the community subtheme:

“That voting is so good for my wiki, and I want do it – vote, to support wikipedia.”
“Code of Conduct is important for sustainable development of the movement”
“I fully support the new drafting of UCoC because doing so will greatly help my community.”

Implementation (24.9%)[edit]

Feedback on Vote Mechanism: 2 (2.2%)
UCoC and it's addition to Terms of Use: 2 (2.2%)
Privacy and Transparency: 3 (3.3%)
Right to be Heard/Privacy of Accuser and Accusee: 4 (4.3%)
Training Module Feedback: 8 (8.7%)
Implementation and creation of the U4C: 9 (9.8%)
Weaponization of EGs: 15 (16.3%)
Effective implementation of the UCoC Policy and Enforcement Guidelines: 16 (17.4%)
Effective Enforcement of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines: 33 (35.9%)

Figure 6: This chart represents the comments relating to the implementation of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. The largest section relates to concerns about effective enforcement of the UCoC.

The Implementation theme includes nine subthemes that are related to putting the Enforcement Guidelines into effect.

The two largest groups of comments are related to the Effective Enforcement of the UCoC/ Enforcement Guidelines and the Effective implementation of the UCoC/EG. Other comments are related to concerns about Weaponization of EGs, the Implementation and creation of the U4C, Training Modules Feedback, protecting Privacy and Transparency and the Right to be Heard, concerns about the UCoC and its addition to the Terms of Use, and Feedback on Vote Mechanisms.

Find examples below from Effective Enforcement of the UCoC/ Enforcement Guidelines and the Effective implementation of the UCoC/Enforcement Guidelines subthemes:

“I am concerned about the nuances; e.g., using irony is a valid resource to make some people think, but they may take it as an offense or an aggression... who decides? who decides? how do you discern?”
“Beyond the application of the Code of Conduct, I realized that it would be important, even urgent, to work on a real sensitization (regional and local committees...) without forgetting the consideration of socio-cultural realities.”
“Looking at the situation on the Japanese version of Wikipedia, even if you make various detailed rules, if there is no one to enforce them, the 'rules' are just something in writing….“I have concerns about enforcement. There is a fear that it will ultimately be used arbitrarily for the convenience of a person or group with a specific authority.”

Find examples below from the Right to be heard and Privacy and Transparency subthemes:

“A vote of the U4C is obligatory for me. I also think the right to be heard is very important.”
“No arbitrary and secret bans.”

Find an example below from the UCoC and its addition to the Terms of Use subtheme:

“I think I am against adding UCoC to Wikimedia terms of use. Terms of use should not be vague and instead be clear-cut imo. UCoC is being enforced in all communities, and making terms and condition unclear for medium and small communities is one of the ways to bring potential issues in it's interpretation. They should be kept separated.”

Find examples below from Training Modules Feedback subtheme:

“The "recommendation" that advanced rights holders should undergo training for the UCoC is incredibly worrying.”
“Generally agree. But why is the verb to conduct training replaced with the verb "recommend" in the revised 2.2? Personally, I think that such training is very important for the relevant personnel to be familiar with the General Code of Conduct and should be mandatory to help them better carry out their activities.”

Find examples below from the Implementation and creation of the U4C subtheme:

“I am concerned about the manner in which this is being implemented. It seems that it is being done without much fanfare, which in the long run is very bad for the wiki community. Also, I don't think the creation of a body of Code Enforcers has been properly thought through in terms of its interaction with other, older bodies on wikipedia (i.e. Admins). I would like to see these concerns addressed before the enforcement plan is implemented.”
“English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is required by policy to publish detailed rationales for decisions unless they are unsuitable for public discussion. The Enforcement Guidelines hold the U4C to the much lower standard of providing documentation on the effectiveness of UCoC enforcement. This is not acceptable for a co-equal committee.”

Find an example below from the Weaponization of Enforcement Guidelines subtheme:

“Seems excessively convoluted and will just become a weapon for one side to use in disputes. The supporting letter talking about a "living document" is very worrying as that can imply changing meaning based on whoever happens to be interpreting it.”

Find an example below from the Feedback on Vote Mechanisms subtheme:

“I would like to ask that, in general, the access criteria to be able to participate in this vote be broadened, especially with regard to the need to have made at least 20 editions between July 3, 2022 and January 3, 2023, because the circumstances of people's lives should not have to limit a vote. Thank you very much for your attention.”

Miscellaneous (4.6%)[edit]

Specific feedback on community processes/regulation/nonspecific to UCoC: 3 (17.6%)
Neutral /Null votes/comments: 14 (82.4%)

Figure 7: The miscellaneous comments were dominated by generally neutral comments. The small portion on this chart represents specific comments on community processes not related to the UCoC.

The Miscellaneous comments theme is divided into two subthemes. The majority of these comments registered a Neutral/Null votes/ comment such as “no comment.” Another group of comments are Specific feedback on community processes/regulation nonspecifically related to UCoC.

Find examples below from the Specific feedback on community processes/regulation nonspecifically related to UCoC.subtheme

“Verifiability is essential and secondary sources are necessary, but sometimes primary sources are of much better quality than non-neutral secondary sources used by non-neutral contributors and which detract from the good quality of the article.”

Find examples below from Neutral/Nullvotes subtheme:

“I am not present enough to know whether I agree or not.”
“No comment, Thank you.”

Reader comprehension (13%)[edit]

Translation Feedback: 10 (20.8%)
Vaguely Written text: 38 (79.2%)

Figure 8: This pie chart represents two themes. The larger section represents comments that the Enforcement Guidelines are too vague. The smaller section represents comments relating to the translations of the Enforcement Guidelines.

The Reader comprehension themes contain two types of comments. The largest group of comments indicate the Enforcement Guideline text is too Vaguely Written. Another group of comments offer Translation Feedback.

Find examples below from the Vaguely Written subtheme:

“I have no complaints about UCoC EGs, but I find parts UCoC itself vague and unclear. Just look at its last sentence, it's pretty much untranslatable (this – what this?). I've been to several meetings with WMF legal staff and were told they cannot interpret it for me, it would take a board member to do so. It would be good to have some examples worked out. This is not the only example, I myself have a few more, but don't know whom to reach out to. See also many unanswered questions at link “
“The guidelines are too detailed and technical to allow for simple and sufficient engagement from non-experts. A set of overarching explanations and summaries should be available for the text as a whole and every substantial section. My impression, at least, is furthermore that there is no ultimate scrutiny of the overall guideline-writing process or the results of its implementation (whether intended or not, and whether they relate to sub-optimal (official or unofficial) policies or the lack of a action / superfluous action). — It should also have been made very clear whether this "re-vote", as it were, is in order to decide whether this revised version is better than the original proposal or whether, in a broader sense, each voter is satisfied with it, as if there had been no previous vote and this had been the original version of the guidelines.”
“The current UCoC should not be enforced because it is too unclear and ambiguous. For example, when I see a disruptive edit, I often check other edits by the same user, and if I find them disruptive as well, I revert them and post warnings on the user's talk page. In other words, I'm following users across the project and repeatedly critique their work mainly with the intent to discourage them from doing what they do. According to [the UCoC] that's "hounding".”

Find examples below from the Translation feedback subtheme.

“In point 6, part 3.1 of the French translation, the wording seems to me ambiguous. It says: "The accused persons shall have access to the details of the alleged violation committed against them [...]. I would have deleted "against them" because it can be understood that the violation is committed against the accused persons and not by these accused persons.”
“If any difference arises in the meaning between the English version and a translation, decisions will be based on the English version. For every used language a valid translation has to be provided. A fallback to English disadvantages non-native speakers.”