Hello, This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the 2030 strategy process (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20). I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share.
I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could be good in some limited but important circumstances: (1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order. In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries. By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate. These default positions may be changed if there is significant evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by outsiders. (2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason for privacy. (3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends that individuals be sanctioned. (4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban. I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of conduct committee for: (1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to address these disputes. (2) content disputes. (3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or acting as an extension of WMF. (4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale. Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best created locally. In some cases, problems with content may be resolved as a secondary effect of resolving problems with conduct. Thoughts? Ever onward, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
