Results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Vote - Wikimedia-l

F. Xavier Dengra i Grau

13 Feb 13 Feb

7:38 p.m.

Hi/Bona vesprada, Without meaning at all that I do not respect the results of this voting, I would like to call the attention to the fact that out of 3097 votes, practically 2000 are circumscribed to only 4 big home wikis: en.wiki (1000), de.wiki (500), fr.wiki (200) and es.wiki (150). Imho it is somehow concerning that 2/3 of the votes of such a key policy are heavily relying on the weight of those major projects. I understand the constraints in participation, but it isn't either a trivial value -considering how much do we read about the WMF efforts to promote the so-called “Global South” communities and the minority language wikis. There is a great essay on English Wikipedia, ["Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silence_does_not_imply_co…quot;, that has a very thoughtful background and that I like very much to remind: "Silence implies consensus" is an old standby on Wikipedia. However, with regard to new policies and guidelines, this cannot apply, and silence should instead imply either indifference or a lack of proper exposure. If a proposal produces indifference in the community, it is not necessary. If a proposal has not been adequately exposed to the community, there is no just cause for implementing it as policy. Kind regards/Salutacions, Xavier Dengra ------- Original Message ------- El dilluns, 13 de febrer 2023 a les 20:00, Shani Evenstein <shani(a)wikimedia.org> va escriure:

...

Hello Everyone, Today the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines vote were tallied. We are pleased to report the results show that the Enforcement Guidelines are strongly supported by the community, with 76% of participants voting in support of the Enforcement Guidelines. A report with a summary and analysis of comments submitted in the voting process is being prepared by the staff members supporting the Universal Code of Conduct work and will be available soon. Below is a message created by the staff members supporting the Universal Code of Conduct work, which has [translations available on Meta-wiki](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revise…. The recent community-wide vote on the [Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Co… has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated. After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. [Statistics](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Co… for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon. From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated in this process. This list includes the people who voted in 2022 and those voters who provided comments so we could strengthen and clarify the Enforcement Guidelines into the version the community supports. I especially want to thank the Drafting Committee, who took the time to reconvene and review community feedback from the 2022 Enforcement Guideline vote and continue to engage with the community and feedback throughout 2022. Finally, thank you to the people who voted and shared feedback during this voting period. We look forward to reviewing the report of the feedback and discussing next steps with the rest of the Board. Shani, on behalf of the CAC. [Shani Evenstein Sigalov](https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/shani-evenstein-sigalov/) Vice Chair, Board of Trustees Chair, Community Affairs Committee [Wikimedia Foundation](https://wikimediafoundation.org/)

Reply

Risker

9:26 p.m.

Just noting in passing that the SecurePoll default for "home wiki" is the project on which an account made its first edit. A large number of editors who would consider their "home wiki" a different project (or even a different language entirely) made their first edit on English Wikipedia; the same is true of several of the other "large" Wikipedias. The extended statistical information tells us that more than half of all voters met voting requirements on two or more projects. It's also noteworthy that the majority of Wikimedia projects have a very small group of contributors who would meet the voting requirements.Most editors who work on our smaller projects made their earliest contributions on a larger project, and that larger project is going to be considered their "home" wiki. SecurePoll treats an account's edits wholistically, rather than project-by-project, and it does not record the location (wiki/project) from which an account has voted. It should be noted that there isn't a lot of data provided with relation to our smaller projects in the statistical analysis. This is appropriate as it could impact user privacy. As an aside, I am part of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee team looking at using SecurePoll for some aspects of ratification of the Charter. We are already discussing with the team that is responsible for SecurePoll about some of these issues, such as users being able to select their "home wiki", results per project, expanding the available translations, and ways to maintain privacy for contributors to smaller projects. We're also watching closely for relevant comments specific to the use of SecurePoll in this and other elections, and what improvements Wikimedians (especially those from smaller projects) suggest for SecurePoll. Thanks, Xavier, for raising the issue. Risker/Anne On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 15:49, Stella Ng <sng(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hello Xavier, Thank you for your email, and sharing your observations and concerns. Many other movement initiatives face similar challenges. Equitable participation and engagement are something we are working to improve with each and every interaction. The UCoC project team has poured a sizable amount of discussion, planning and energy into outreach to the movement throughout the process. The goal was to encourage participation from as many communities as possible. The ways the UCoC team encouraged participation can be seen through the results of this work. The Revised Enforcement Guidelines are currently translated into over 40 languages; voter information, banners, and emails were also heavily translated. The project team hosted outreach and conversation hours throughout the drafting process. We have made it a point to invite and engage with many communities, particularly small and medium-sized, and it is our goal to continue to ensure that the growing communities and small language wikis are invited to engage with us. It is our hope that as we progress, the UCoC and the Enforcement Guidelines will create a better environment that will see more interaction from all communities. As we embark on the next steps and stages of this ongoing project, we will increase engagement, conversations, and interaction with the growing communities and small language wikis in as many languages, places, and contexts as possible. The UCoC is an iterative process, and we will be inviting opinions of how to make it more inclusive as we continue onwards. Kind regards, Stella Ng On Behalf of the UCoC Project Team On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:39 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi/Bona vesprada, Without meaning at all that I do not respect the results of this voting, I would like to call the attention to the fact that out of 3097 votes, practically 2000 are circumscribed to only 4 big home wikis: en.wiki (1000), de.wiki (500), fr.wiki (200) and es.wiki (150). Imho it is somehow concerning that 2/3 of the votes of such a key policy are heavily relying on the weight of those major projects. I understand the constraints in participation, but it isn't either a trivial value -considering how much do we read about the WMF efforts to promote the so-called “Global South” communities and the minority language wikis. There is a great essay on English Wikipedia, "Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silence_does_not_imply_consent_when_drafting_new_policies>", that has a very thoughtful background and that I like very much to remind: *"Silence implies consensus" is an old standby on Wikipedia. However, with regard to new policies and guidelines, this cannot apply, and silence should instead imply either indifference or a lack of proper exposure. If a proposal produces indifference in the community, it is not necessary. If a proposal has not been adequately exposed to the community, there is no just cause for implementing it as policy.* Kind regards/Salutacions, Xavier Dengra ------- Original Message ------- El dilluns, 13 de febrer 2023 a les 20:00, Shani Evenstein < shani(a)wikimedia.org> va escriure: Hello Everyone, *Today the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines vote were tallied*. We are pleased to report the results show that the Enforcement Guidelines are strongly supported by the community, with *76% of participants voting in support *of the Enforcement Guidelines. A report with a summary and analysis of comments submitted in the voting process is being prepared by the staff members supporting the Universal Code of Conduct work and will be available soon. Below is a message created by the staff members supporting the Universal Code of Conduct work, which has translations available on Meta-wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Vote_results_announcement> . The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines> has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated. After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. Statistics <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Voting_statistics> for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon. From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated in this process. This list includes the people who voted in 2022 and those voters who provided comments so we could strengthen and clarify the Enforcement Guidelines into the version the community supports. I especially want to thank the Drafting Committee, who took the time to reconvene and review community feedback from the 2022 Enforcement Guideline vote and continue to engage with the community and feedback throughout 2022. Finally, thank you to the people who voted and shared feedback during this voting period. We look forward to reviewing the report of the feedback and discussing next steps with the rest of the Board. Shani, on behalf of the CAC. Shani Evenstein Sigalov <https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/shani-evenstein-sigalov/> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees Chair, Community Affairs Committee Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Reply

Joe Sutherland

17 Feb 17 Feb

7:56 a.m.

Just to follow up on this from Risker, I filed a task on the home wiki issue: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T329922 best, Joe -- *Joe Sutherland* (he/him) Lead Trust and Safety Specialist Wikimedia Foundation On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 13:27, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Just noting in passing that the SecurePoll default for "home wiki" is the project on which an account made its first edit. A large number of editors who would consider their "home wiki" a different project (or even a different language entirely) made their first edit on English Wikipedia; the same is true of several of the other "large" Wikipedias. The extended statistical information tells us that more than half of all voters met voting requirements on two or more projects. It's also noteworthy that the majority of Wikimedia projects have a very small group of contributors who would meet the voting requirements.Most editors who work on our smaller projects made their earliest contributions on a larger project, and that larger project is going to be considered their "home" wiki. SecurePoll treats an account's edits wholistically, rather than project-by-project, and it does not record the location (wiki/project) from which an account has voted. It should be noted that there isn't a lot of data provided with relation to our smaller projects in the statistical analysis. This is appropriate as it could impact user privacy. As an aside, I am part of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee team looking at using SecurePoll for some aspects of ratification of the Charter. We are already discussing with the team that is responsible for SecurePoll about some of these issues, such as users being able to select their "home wiki", results per project, expanding the available translations, and ways to maintain privacy for contributors to smaller projects. We're also watching closely for relevant comments specific to the use of SecurePoll in this and other elections, and what improvements Wikimedians (especially those from smaller projects) suggest for SecurePoll. Thanks, Xavier, for raising the issue. Risker/Anne On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 15:49, Stella Ng <sng(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hello Xavier, Thank you for your email, and sharing your observations and concerns. Many other movement initiatives face similar challenges. Equitable participation and engagement are something we are working to improve with each and every interaction. The UCoC project team has poured a sizable amount of discussion, planning and energy into outreach to the movement throughout the process. The goal was to encourage participation from as many communities as possible. The ways the UCoC team encouraged participation can be seen through the results of this work. The Revised Enforcement Guidelines are currently translated into over 40 languages; voter information, banners, and emails were also heavily translated. The project team hosted outreach and conversation hours throughout the drafting process. We have made it a point to invite and engage with many communities, particularly small and medium-sized, and it is our goal to continue to ensure that the growing communities and small language wikis are invited to engage with us. It is our hope that as we progress, the UCoC and the Enforcement Guidelines will create a better environment that will see more interaction from all communities. As we embark on the next steps and stages of this ongoing project, we will increase engagement, conversations, and interaction with the growing communities and small language wikis in as many languages, places, and contexts as possible. The UCoC is an iterative process, and we will be inviting opinions of how to make it more inclusive as we continue onwards. Kind regards, Stella Ng On Behalf of the UCoC Project Team On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:39 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi/Bona vesprada, Without meaning at all that I do not respect the results of this voting, I would like to call the attention to the fact that out of 3097 votes, practically 2000 are circumscribed to only 4 big home wikis: en.wiki (1000), de.wiki (500), fr.wiki (200) and es.wiki (150). Imho it is somehow concerning that 2/3 of the votes of such a key policy are heavily relying on the weight of those major projects. I understand the constraints in participation, but it isn't either a trivial value -considering how much do we read about the WMF efforts to promote the so-called “Global South” communities and the minority language wikis. There is a great essay on English Wikipedia, "Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silence_does_not_imply_consent_when_drafting_new_policies>", that has a very thoughtful background and that I like very much to remind: *"Silence implies consensus" is an old standby on Wikipedia. However, with regard to new policies and guidelines, this cannot apply, and silence should instead imply either indifference or a lack of proper exposure. If a proposal produces indifference in the community, it is not necessary. If a proposal has not been adequately exposed to the community, there is no just cause for implementing it as policy.* Kind regards/Salutacions, Xavier Dengra ------- Original Message ------- El dilluns, 13 de febrer 2023 a les 20:00, Shani Evenstein < shani(a)wikimedia.org> va escriure: Hello Everyone, *Today the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines vote were tallied*. We are pleased to report the results show that the Enforcement Guidelines are strongly supported by the community, with *76% of participants voting in support *of the Enforcement Guidelines. A report with a summary and analysis of comments submitted in the voting process is being prepared by the staff members supporting the Universal Code of Conduct work and will be available soon. Below is a message created by the staff members supporting the Universal Code of Conduct work, which has translations available on Meta-wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Vote_results_announcement> . The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines> has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated. After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. Statistics <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Voting_statistics> for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon. From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated in this process. This list includes the people who voted in 2022 and those voters who provided comments so we could strengthen and clarify the Enforcement Guidelines into the version the community supports. I especially want to thank the Drafting Committee, who took the time to reconvene and review community feedback from the 2022 Enforcement Guideline vote and continue to engage with the community and feedback throughout 2022. Finally, thank you to the people who voted and shared feedback during this voting period. We look forward to reviewing the report of the feedback and discussing next steps with the rest of the Board. Shani, on behalf of the CAC. Shani Evenstein Sigalov <https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/shani-evenstein-sigalov/> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees Chair, Community Affairs Committee Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Reply

Adel.nehaoua.wiki＠gmail.com

15 Feb 15 Feb

5:19 p.m.

مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من الناحية التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية وليس على المحتوى: * نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً من بين 68745 ناخب مؤهل * عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع العالمي النشط * استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها من أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية والتساؤل: * لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت مشاركتها ضئيلة فهي غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري * هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة الانفاذ؟ * هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها أو نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟ تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة ودفعها للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي انطباعا خاطئا تحياتي

Reply

F. Xavier Dengra i Grau

6:45 a.m.

Thank you Adel for adding up very valuable input and thoughts on my initial concern. You explained the turnout, participation and the evaluation issues of such an enforcement much better than I did in my first email. Kind regards/Salutacions, Xaviet Dengra El dc, 15 febr., 2023 a 18:19, <Adel.nehaoua.wiki(a)gmail.com> va escriure:

...

مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من الناحية التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية وليس على المحتوى: * نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً من بين 68745 ناخب مؤهل * عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع العالمي النشط * استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها من أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية والتساؤل: * لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت مشاركتها ضئيلة فهي غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري * هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة الانفاذ؟ * هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها أو نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟ تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة ودفعها للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي انطباعا خاطئا تحياتي _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Reply

Joe Sutherland

10:50 p.m.

Hi there, There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the

...

conversation/statistics: - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to the populations in their respective communities.

Unfortunately this kind of breakdown data isn't possible with SecurePoll - that's by design, since the system anonymises votes as they're placed. So there would be no way to know who exactly a "yes" or a "no" came from in the data, and thus no way to get more granular data (at least as things are set up right now). best, Joe -- *Joe Sutherland* (he/him) Lead Trust and Safety Specialist Wikimedia Foundation On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 10:59, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that these are valid concerns, as is the point that we should > consider how the 'homewiki' (or whatever demographic you choose to follow) > distribution across those votes impacts the outcome. I think there will be > general agreement that more participation would be great (although I feel > that I have to admit, that this time around I didn't vote myself: just > didn't get to reading the proposals carefully enough this time.) > > There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the

...

conversation/statistics: - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to the populations in their respective communities.

> > A turnout this size is maybe not a high percentage of eligible voters, but > note that we intentionally set our eligibility criteria low. A low > percentage is then only a natural outcome. I do wonder: what kind of > percentage would make colleagues more confident? And how could we > realistically achieve those percentages? > > Best, > Lodewijk > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:55 PM <Adel.nehaoua.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من >> الناحية التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية >> وليس على المحتوى: >> * نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً من بين 68745 ناخب مؤهل >> * عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع >> العالمي النشط >> * استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها من >> أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية >> والتساؤل: >> * لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على >> المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت مشاركتها ضئيلة فهي >> غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد >> يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري >> * هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة الانفاذ؟ >> * هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها أو >> نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟ >> تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة >> ودفعها للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي >> انطباعا خاطئا >> تحياتي >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Reply

Gnangarra

17 Feb 17 Feb

3:46 a.m.

Unfortunately you cant talk about the outcome of a result prior to it taking place. On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 07:55, Chico Venancio <chicocvenancio(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm a bit disappointed that we're discussing the results of a vote after it was taken, these things have to be voiced and discussed before the voting begins, not after a result you may disagree with has been tallied. Chico Venancio Em qui., 16 de fev. de 2023 às 19:51, Joe Sutherland < jsutherland(a)wikimedia.org> escreveu:

Hi there, There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the

conversation/statistics: - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to the populations in their respective communities.

Unfortunately this kind of breakdown data isn't possible with SecurePoll - that's by design, since the system anonymises votes as they're placed. So there would be no way to know who exactly a "yes" or a "no" came from in the data, and thus no way to get more granular data (at least as things are set up right now). best, Joe -- *Joe Sutherland* (he/him) Lead Trust and Safety Specialist Wikimedia Foundation On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 10:59, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that these are valid concerns, as is the point that we should > consider how the 'homewiki' (or whatever demographic you choose to follow) > distribution across those votes impacts the outcome. I think there will be > general agreement that more participation would be great (although I feel > that I have to admit, that this time around I didn't vote myself: just > didn't get to reading the proposals carefully enough this time.) > > There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the

conversation/statistics: - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to the populations in their respective communities.

> > A turnout this size is maybe not a high percentage of eligible voters, > but note that we intentionally set our eligibility criteria low. A low > percentage is then only a natural outcome. I do wonder: what kind of > percentage would make colleagues more confident? And how could we > realistically achieve those percentages? > > Best, > Lodewijk > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:55 PM <Adel.nehaoua.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من >> الناحية التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية >> وليس على المحتوى: >> * نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً من بين 68745 ناخب >> مؤهل >> * عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع >> العالمي النشط >> * استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها >> من أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية >> والتساؤل: >> * لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على >> المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت مشاركتها ضئيلة فهي >> غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد >> يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري >> * هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة >> الانفاذ؟ >> * هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها أو >> نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟ >> تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة >> ودفعها للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي >> انطباعا خاطئا >> تحياتي >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

-- Boodarwun Gnangarra 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'

Reply

Gnangarra

4:24 p.m.

...

Which of your arguments here depend on the result to be made?

- The celebration of numbers, with no consideration or even evaluation of arguments - the distribution of votes - the small turn out - the failure of securepoll - even the lack of participation in process thats taken 3-4 years The result is if we cant talk about a process and review its outcome, why even start the process? This is the first of many formal authoritative laws from the movement strategy 2030 process that began back in 2017. We absolutely need to make sure that the intent of the planning is what we are creating and that in doing so it brings the whole community along. On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 23:16, Chico Venancio <chicocvenancio(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Unfortunately you cant talk about the outcome of a result prior to it > taking place.

...

Which of your arguments here depend on the result to be made?

> > Moving goalposts after a vote has been taken seems very problematic, and > may be at the heart of many of the issues we have with participation in > these kinds of discussions. > > Chico Venancio > > > Em sex., 17 de fev. de 2023 às 00:47, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> > escreveu: > >> Unfortunately you cant talk about the outcome of a result prior to it >> taking place. >> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 07:55, Chico Venancio <chicocvenancio(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm a bit disappointed that we're discussing the results of a vote after >>> it was taken, these things have to be voiced and discussed before the >>> voting begins, not after a result you may disagree with has been tallied. >>> >>> Chico Venancio >>> >>> Em qui., 16 de fev. de 2023 às 19:51, Joe Sutherland < >>> jsutherland(a)wikimedia.org> escreveu: >>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the >>>>> conversation/statistics: >>>>> - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from >>>>> smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting >>>>> infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. >>>>> - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For >>>>> example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors >>>>> been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to >>>>> the populations in their respective communities. >>>> >>>> >>>> Unfortunately this kind of breakdown data isn't possible with >>>> SecurePoll - that's by design, since the system anonymises votes as they're >>>> placed. So there would be no way to know who exactly a "yes" or a "no" came >>>> from in the data, and thus no way to get more granular data (at least as >>>> things are set up right now). >>>> >>>> best, >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Joe Sutherland* (he/him) >>>> Lead Trust and Safety Specialist >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 10:59, effe iets anders < >>>> effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree that these are valid concerns, as is the point that we should >>>>> consider how the 'homewiki' (or whatever demographic you choose to follow) >>>>> distribution across those votes impacts the outcome. I think there will be >>>>> general agreement that more participation would be great (although I feel >>>>> that I have to admit, that this time around I didn't vote myself: just >>>>> didn't get to reading the proposals carefully enough this time.) >>>>> >>>>> There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the >>>>> conversation/statistics: >>>>> - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from >>>>> smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting >>>>> infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. >>>>> - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For >>>>> example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors >>>>> been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to >>>>> the populations in their respective communities. >>>>> >>>>> A turnout this size is maybe not a high percentage of eligible voters, >>>>> but note that we intentionally set our eligibility criteria low. A low >>>>> percentage is then only a natural outcome. I do wonder: what kind of >>>>> percentage would make colleagues more confident? And how could we >>>>> realistically achieve those percentages? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Lodewijk >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:55 PM <Adel.nehaoua.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من >>>>>> الناحية التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية >>>>>> وليس على المحتوى: >>>>>> * نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً من بين 68745 ناخب >>>>>> مؤهل >>>>>> * عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع >>>>>> العالمي النشط >>>>>> * استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها >>>>>> من أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية >>>>>> والتساؤل: >>>>>> * لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على >>>>>> المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت مشاركتها ضئيلة فهي >>>>>> غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد >>>>>> يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري >>>>>> * هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة >>>>>> الانفاذ؟ >>>>>> * هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها >>>>>> أو نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟ >>>>>> تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة >>>>>> ودفعها للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي >>>>>> انطباعا خاطئا >>>>>> تحياتي >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, >>>>>> guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> Public archives at >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, >>>>> guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> Public archives at >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> >> -- >> Boodarwun >> Gnangarra >> 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar >> koortaboodjar' >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org -- Boodarwun Gnangarra 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'

Reply