Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines

Add topic
Active discussions

This page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines.

  Please remember to:

  Discussion navigation:


The UCoC has a role as an optional fallback for those projects which don't have their own standards. Attempting to impose it on large, established communities such as English Wikipedia against consensus is just another power grab which will drive away editors. Certes (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, UCoC should not apply on enwik, as enwiki can handle itself. Rockstone35 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

100%, allow large wikis a ratification vote. This should be in each wiki's usual format (on en-wiki and I suspect on most others that means a community initiated, written, and closed RFC). If they ratify it, cool, we dotted is and crossed ts. If they don't, we dodge a minefield where communities are asked to abide by/enforce standards that don't have consensus. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that UCoC itself is already approved as a global policy (see foundation:Universal Code of Conduct), and it technically already applies at all Wikimedia wikis. The discussion here is about the enforcement guidelines, rather than UCoC itself. Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
It's been approved by the WMF, which unilaterally asserts the right to override policies "local" to much larger communities such as enwp. It will be interesting to see how that claim works in practice. Certes (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The UCOC has not been ratified by the community and therefore doesn't have consensus there. I expect they're developing a complete proposal with enforcement mechanisms fully documented before they ask us to ratify it, and I appreciate that. I do trust there won't be an attempt at an end-run around community ratification.S Marshall (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    @S Marshall the WMF, and the BOT, have formally stated that they view phase 1 as approved and not needing community ratification. I did have some very odd discussions with several T&S and Legal staffers on the topic, with some weird statements. This included that no-one had mentioned wanting ratification until the arbcom open letter, and then when provided with the diff during phase 1 consultations, went dark on the topic. But any ratification vote is (formally) purely on the EGs. I also remain unsure why they limited the revisions committee to just working on the enforcement guidelines. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    If they omit to hold a ratification RfC, then I'd anticipate the community starting its own ratification RfC without them.--S Marshall (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    This could happen. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Whenever you edit there is a note: „By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use“. As all official WMF resolutions are binding per Terms of Use#11, so is the WMF Resolution:Approval of a Universal Code of Conduct. That's why the UCoC already applies to all projects and all volunteers, any „ratification vote“ is pointless. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
"UCoC should not apply on enwik, as enwiki can handle itself." EnWiki has sometimes chosen not to enforce its own anti-harassment policies.[1][2][3][4][5] With UCOC in effect, the U4C might be able to take care of business when local officers fail. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Some people just aren't here to edit an encyclopedia. 16:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of all the cases I cited, which people involved "just aren't here to edit an encyclopedia"? Can you prove that they weren't? Even if they weren't, that's not a good excuse to harass them. Nor is it a good excuse to tolerate others harassing them. Your comment shows why we need a UCOC to begin with. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement by type of violationsEdit

There is nothing directly specifying UCoC violations by WMF staff & contractors, BOT, Working Groups or Committees. While its highly unlikely that people in some of the roles would cause an issue, its only fair that there be some recourse mentioned in this section for those areas. Aka Affcom oversees affiliates but who oversees Affcom, what if the Language committee denies a language because of racism, or a funding committee denies a community/individual without performance of certain actions? The way committees are developing with single regional representatives as the conduit for access, the shift to hybrid event like the Summit where a select few have access has opened the door for corruption. The current layout appears to create a set of untouchables in the movement, further enhancing that potential. There more WMF systems move off wiki the deeper these untouchables are able to cement power. Gnangarra (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gnangarra I agree with the general thrust to your point (in fact, both of them - one the level of power of off-wiki committees (this from someone who sits on one) and that some level of conduct route through them (other than internal or the BOT) is beneficial. This will be triply true should a global council come into being. I do however note that the UCOC does specify violations by WMF staffers and the BOT, as they need to specifically affirm it. The pathways for that would logically be wherever the nexus of the issues was.
In line with what I interpret the spirit of your comment to be, I do encourage a tweak so that staffers' conduct can be directly taken to U4C (a "court of first instance") on projects where there isn't an arbcom or equivalent. Making a solo admin block of a staffer on those marginal cases will inherently involve a higher standard than would be applied to others, which shouldn't be the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear thanks and yes that was what I was trying to point out, there is a gap in where to go in the first instance with this cohort of people in these guidelines its focus is solely on community members. Gnangarra (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Minor syntactical issuesEdit

  • "See definition on Meta": As the link points to the definition on Meta, not Meta('s main page?) itself, the linked text should be "definition" or "definition on Meta". The current linking style is discouraged by dewiki and enwiki ([6], [7]).
    • Makes sense, thanks again for the suggestion. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • There is one too many newlines / paragraph breaks between "4.1 Purpose and scope" and "4.2 Selection, membership, and roles". ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    • This was done, thanks for your oversight! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
      That was quick   thanks! ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • How can I correct minor errors like "Trustees’s" most efficiently? Can I upload a file with corrections, and if so where? Billfalls (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

First, of all thank you for your work in removing the most problematic parts. Second I have a suggesting for this section: Why must it always the UCoC, that is linked, if local texts like e.g. de:Wikipedia:Wikiquette exists. Of Course it has not the status of a policy, but it has nice recommendations in it, which are easy to understand. Habitator terrae (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


About the previous version I stated, that the sentence "The privacy of a case should be determined not only by those charged with resolving the case, but also with input from those who raised the initial report." could touch the praxis by the dewiki arbcom, to only have public cases. Do I understand correctly (in the dewiki), that now in cases, where somebody has a need for an arbcom and wants his privacy accepted, this first comes before the U4C, which then checks, whether there are privacy concerns. If yes itself decides the case, if not it is forwarded to the dewiki arbcom? Habitator terrae (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC) PS: Why don't you call the U4C "interwiki arbcom"?

I am speaking only for myself and not for the revisions committee or any other member of the committee. As the person who came up with the name U4C, I intentionally wanted something other than an arbcom. In my mind the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee should be doing more Coordinating than Arbitrating. And no if someone wants privacy they may continue to use an ArbCom, as long as local policy allows that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: So in your opinion all stays the same, also if local praxis doesn't allow privacy arbcom (only privacy admins etc.)? Habitator terrae (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Habitator terrae in my opinion all stays the same for wikis with well developed processes like enwiki and dewiki. Neither has, based on what I know, any systemic failures which is when the U4C could get involved. I think the enforcement guidelines give communities options about how to allow private reporting. Three options are an arbcom, private reporting to admins, and private reporting to the U4C (or people the U4C delegates that to). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, for clarifying. Habitator terrae (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
de-WP offers no standardized process of reporting while maintaining privacy: Oversights have an mail contact, but they are not responsible for resolving conflicts. And de-Arbcom has a rule that an AC-request has to be public (de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Regeln#Anfrageerstellung Das Schiedsgericht muss offen angerufen werden. A rule that was introduce via RfC and cannot be changed easily.) They do offer, that you can send them additonal info via mail, but the request itself has to be public.
Two years ago, someone tried: de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Belästigung Title is just "Arbcom/requests/Harassment( or /Molestation/nuisance)" The complete public description was Because of privacy reasons, all the info was sent to Arbcom via mail ("Aufgrund des Persönlichkeitsschutzes wurden sämtliche Informationen dem SG per E-Mail zugesendet.") This arbcom-request itself caused an immediate shitstorm (de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Archiv/2020#Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Belästigung), leading to the arbcom not dealing with the request. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
If de-WP arbcom cannot deal with a case because of privacy issues, some other method will be necessary. Some possibilities come to mind, but basically it is an internal issue at de: and I would not presume to advise them.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Confirming adherenceEdit

The new text is a lot better IMO, thank you for revising it. What is the plan for how the listed groups of people will "confirm their adherence to the UCoC"? Is this something yet to be decided or did I miss it somewhere? Legoktm (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Gibt es eine Synopse?Edit

Ist ja nett, dass da was überarbeitet wurde, allerdings sollte dann auch alt und neu schön sortiert nebeneinander gestellt werden, damit die Änderungen auch deutlich werden. Was wurde denn wo an welcher Formulierung konkret geändert?
It's nice, that they are revised, but old and new should be made easy comparable side by side, so that the changes can be good evaluated. What was changed with wich concrete sentence where?
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sänger: major changes are available for comparison here. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Could the people compiling the comparison table please indicate which text remains the same and which text has changed, by something like font or colour variations, or underlining. Alternatively, would it be acceptable if we do it ourselves? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
major changes - in WMF we trust 😂 👍 ...Sicherlich Post 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
If they fail to disclose a substantive change, there will be a big reaction. They cannot afford this. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: thanks for your good suggestion, Peter! I definitely agree that it would be helpful to add more distinguishing features to the comparison table. The example that I'm currently thinking to follow is the one we have for early Enforcement Guidelines text changes, which our team should be able to prepare for this page soon. Please let me know if you have an even better suggestion, of course. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@RamzyM (WMF): That system looks adequate to me. Perhaps someone else will also comment? Thanks, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Where is the scope of these decisions listed?Edit

From 3.3.3 Appeals: "Appeals are not possible against certain decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department." Could you link to where the scope of these non-appealable decisions is listed or defined please. Certain decisions is excessively vague. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This information should also be covered in Module C2 - Handling appeals, closing cases (UCoC - Appeals): · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Also perhaps worth linking to the CRC, assuming it still exists (and will do so post-UCOC?) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: I believe you meant to link to Trust and Safety/Case Review Committee. Legoktm (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed - this was after I rewrote it once because I tried to link to CAC. But at least that indicates they've not been through a name change (or perhaps they'll stop being interim?) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: This information needs to be in the guidelines, otherwise it violates the principle of certainty. Habitator terrae (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Review category 4Edit

The 4th review category (that of right to be heard, and evidentiary rights and interaction with anonymity) is much harder to pick out the changes for. In the major comparison table, it doesn't have a specific section in the way that training and affirmation do.

Something summarizing the changes (even if scattered in several places, and aware that some changes are additions and others are removals) would be appreciated for this. I've talked to several RC members, but that's not a very scalable method. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


This page uses the words "and/or" several times. It would be better to replace it with something else. See And/or in the English Wikipedia. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


This page mentions subsidiarity as a "movement value". If I understand it correctly, it's probably a valid idea. However, the way in which it's mentioned in the document is problematic. "Subsidiarity" doesn't appear in any of the values documents, at least not explicitly. I checked Values/2008 and Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles and it's not there. The sections "Our communities are our biggest asset", "Stewardship", and "Shared power" are perhaps close to it, and I'm not even sure about that.

I've been in the Wikimedia movement since 2004, and I'm quite sure I've never heard this word. It appears only a handful of times in the archives of Wikimedia mailing lists. The page about it on Meta was created by @Sj just a couple of months ago. On other pages on Meta, it appears in many pages about Movement Strategy discussions from recent years, and sure, perhaps I should have made a better effort to follow the Movement Strategy discussions, but the people leading the Strategy process could also make a better effort to make the movement aware of this principle before quietly defining it as a "movement value".

Again, from what I've read about it in the last few days, it's probably a valid idea if I understand it correctly. But please, define this concept more clearly and publicly before basing major decisions on it. Otherwise, it will be just a piece of jargon among a few people on Meta. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

w:Subsidiarity is well defined in most major languages. It's used more often in the political contexts of a few regions; not in the US, for instance. And in the church contexts of a few religions. You are right that it hasn't been incorporated as such into language defining how our communities operate globally, but has been used in local planning over time (notably in WMDE documents, iirc). It does seem a concise way to describe the persistent wiki practice of local decisionmaking by those who show up, or those who are interested in a specific subtopic. What language would you prefer, if this seems too unfamiliar? –SJ talk  13:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The word itself is not the problem. And the principle that it represents is also okay, and appropriate for the movement.
The problem I'm trying to point out is that, to the best of my knowledge, it was never declared as a "movement value". The pages Values/2008 and Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles, which I've cited earlier, kind of mention something similar, but not exactly the same, and using different words. Do we have any other page that describes values?
It is okay to update values over time, but it must be done carefully and openly. It is not okay to simply say that something is a "movement value" without discussing it first and declaring that consensus was reached in that discussion, even if the principle itself is not bad, as is the case here. I'd expect an update in something as important as "movement values" to be declared by the Board, or by a comparable movement body. Was it ever done, and I missed it? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Is Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Movement Strategy Principles#Subsidiarity & Self-Management good enough for you? And the primary role of the WMF Board is oversight for the WMF, I suspect a Board declaration alone will not go very far at e. g. enwiki (just read #Scope at the top of this page). HHill (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link.
This is a list of Movement Strategy Principles. It's good enough for declaring subsidiarity as a Movement Strategy Principle. It's not the same as a movement value, even if it sounds vaguely similar. This document calls it a "movement value", and the movement has another official list of values. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I am assuming UCoC 2.1/2 butin English, @HHill your 'is that good enough for you' and @Sj your ' What language would you prefer, if this seems too unfamiliar?" appear not to be in keeping with UCoC 2.1 3 and UCoC 2.2 -1 -2 -3
@Amire80 I totally agree - these are WMF principles.
Also Frequency of subsidarity = 0
Google book corpus Ngram viewer Subsidarity and solidarity Wakelamp (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes subsidiarity is described as a strategy principle, more precisely as one of the 10 "interconnected" Movement Strategy Principles which are seen as the "fundamental beliefs that guide work across our Movement".
It's a working principle and it's associated with self-management.
Subsidiarity means making decisions at the most immediate or local level wherever possible. It's the self-management of resources and activities.
Subsidiarity is quoted twice in the section "Ensure Equity in Decision-Making - Enable the empowerment of local communities" of the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy.
- first it is mentioned in the context of the creation of regional and thematic hubs which are supposed to bring the principle of subsidiarity into practice by enabling new connections and structures to emerge, and existing ones to be strengthened.
- second mention : the concrete scope and functionality of these structures will be decided by communities and organizations based on their contexts and needs and these systems will follow the subsidiarity principle.
Waltercolor (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. As noted above, if it's a strategy principle, it should be described as a strategy principle and not as a movement value. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


This document mentions ArbCom a few times, and this term even has an entry in the glossary in the end.

The glossary should mention that only a few wikis actually have an ArbCom. Even some of the largest and most active wikis don't have one, for example the Wikipedias in Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew.

Most people in wikis in which an ArbCom doesn't exist don't even know what an ArbCom is.

My suggestion:

  • The glossary should say that it's a body that exists in only some wikis.
  • When the document mentions that the ArbCom should do something, it should also say something like "... if it exists".

Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am writing only for myself and not for the revisions committee or any other member of the committee. I think adding "if it exists" to the document would not add clarity. Outside of the glossary, ArbCom is mentioned 6 times and Arbitration Committee is mentioned 1 time that ArbCom is not. The first two times are on a list of 5 options. It would not make sense to say "if it exists" in that context. The remaining 3 times ArbCom is given as an example and sometimes it is one of several examples so again I'm not sure it adds value. The remaining time it's part of a list that is "including but not limited to" so I don't think it's helpful there. I do think noting something in the glossary about that could be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
ArbComs also have varying degrees of competence. German-language Wikipedia's ArbCom (Schiedsgericht), for example, is - by community decision - quite restricted in the cases it is allowed to handle. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Admins to confirmEdit

The document recommends adding the UCoC to the Terms of Use, and also that some people must specifically confirm adherence to it: staff, board members, representatives, and trademark users. So far, so good.

In another section, it says that UCoC training should be given to Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial. This also makes sense, but it puzzles me that the two lists overlap only partly: Advanced Rights Holders are included in the list for training, but not the list for confirmation.

According to the glossary at the bottom, local wiki admins are included in Advanced rights holders. Local wiki admins should also specifically, explicitly confirm the UCoC. For regular editors, inclusion of the UCoC in the Terms of Use is enough, but it's a good idea to get admins to confirm it explicitly. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence All advanced rights holders (which could have included admins) was removed from the list of groups who would have to confirm their adherence the UCoC. As far as I am aware this was at least partly due to feedback from admins. See also some of the comments made during the vote. HHill (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
On wikis without ArbCom it means no admin will apply UCoC. Harzakc (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

New wikisEdit

Continuing the topic of the previous section about who should explicitly confirm the UCoC, there's another group of people who should be required to confirm the UCoC: People who ask to create a new wiki through the Requests for new languages process.

This group is rarely discussed, and it doesn't have a technical definition, as it is with admins and stewards. In practice, however, these people are usually fairly well-defined intuitively, even if not technically: every new wiki has somebody who writes the creation request, creates the first Incubator articles, communicates to the Language committee and the translatewiki administrators, etc. Sometimes, although not always, this person is appointed to an administrator role in the Incubator.

This is an important leadership position, so these people's adherence to the UCoC should be verified.

(Important comment: I am a member of the Language committee, which deals with new wiki creation, and this suggestion comes from my experience with that process. However, it is my own suggestion, and I didn't consult with other Language committee members about it.) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, communities are strongly shaped by the personalities and practices of founding figures. We should take the opportunity to set expectations for entirely-new communities right from the get-go. Ijon (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

existing guidelinesEdit

There can be existing guidelines not in contradiction to the UCoC policy but with a different approach that change completely it, example don't bite admins is a guideline on it.wikipedia that gives too many excuses to use bad faith and abuse of privileges, meanwhile on en.wikipedia the same is just "humorous essay", so most of the unacceptable behaviours are without any conseguence for those users on the former wiki.

There must be a clear stated point that UCoC is above local guidelines. Harzakc (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide statistics on Safety incidents?Edit

This guideline is to fix these issues, so it makes sense to know how common, source, and how severe they are, Wakelamp (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Including the Case Review Committee in the guidelinesEdit

Hello drafting committee members!

Thank you for your important work. As you may know, I'm the Senior Committee Support Manager for the team that supports the Trust & Safety Case Review Committee (CRC).

The CRC reviews appeals of eligible Trust & Safety office actions. It functions as a critical layer of oversight to ensure that Wikimedia Foundation office actions are fair and unbiased. They also make sure the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t overstep established practices or boundaries. Due to the sensitive nature of their work, committee members remain anonymous and are asked not to disclose past participation until at least six months after they have left the committee.

This interim committee was created following a May 2020 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees statement. It asked the Foundation to "[w]ork with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive review process".

I have had an opportunity to look at the revised enforcement guidelines. I noticed the sentence "Appeals are not possible against certain decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department." While this implies the possibility of appeals against other decisions, my suggestion would be to add: "However, some Wikimedia Foundation Office actions and decisions are reviewable by the Case Review Committee." This would formalize the function of the existing committee within the enforcement guidelines, and allow it to continue operating without additional directions from the Board.

For more information about this group, please refer to the CRC Charter, Handbook, Legal agreement, and regular reports. I would also be happy to answer any questions you may have as you consider this suggestion. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a reasonable and relevant request. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I have skimmed the linked documents, and this still appears to be a reasonable and relevant request.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

consider people who have been left out by structures of power and privilegeEdit

Many Thanks to the Universal Code of Conduct Revisions Committee. Wikimedia Deutschland very much appreciates their work and acknowledges that many comments were taken into account by the committee. The revised text is overall more understandable, more concrete, mostly more realistic in terms of implementation but still offers possibilities to communities to find or establish their ways of implementing UCoC Enforcement to protect volunteers in Wikimedia projects. We would like to suggest to consider one topic in the further revision: people who have been left out by structures of power and privilege. Marginalised people and those specifically affected by harassment should be specifically addressed by adding a principle (section 3.3.) e.g. “support and protection (for those harmed/marginalized)”. As a consequence we recommend besides the training for people enforcing UCoC additional Empowerment Workshops exclusively for those harmed/marginalized. --Vera Krick (WMDE) (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vera! Are there specific recommendations for areas of the document that would benefit from discussing its relation to marginalized groups? Simply asking us to consider marginalized groups is not an actionable recommendation; the entire process involves considering various groups, and to a large extent the point of the UCOC is to decrease the barrier to entry to engage with, and to promote the reliability of, enforcement processes. I have similar thoughts re: "Empowerment Workshops", the intention of entry-level training is to provide knowledge of how to engage with UCOC processes for everyone, and we're recommending the WMF fund affiliates to help provide access to this training more directly. If we missed anything, please let us know so we can discuss and adjust the document accordingly. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Is a recommendation to provide "additional Empowerment Workshops exclusively for those harmed/marginalized." not sufficiently specific? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Vermont for asking and thank you Pbsouthwood for clarifying. We recommended in our statement to consider marginalized groups more clearly by adding another (new) principle to the principle section of the enforcement guidelines. We suggested on a more operational level and to bring the principle to life empowerment training or workshops for those marginalized which helps people to find the courage and/or right ways to decrease barriers themselves and in coalition with others. Our positive experience in supporting and working with a community group speaks for it. But I add more specific observations and recommendations as you asked: The drafting group changed the title for the third training (level3) which seams to say, that “appropriate support for targets of harassment” is less important then “....,Appeals” (new title). This might not be indended but after the important feedback that the Right To Be Heard needs to be considered more accurately in the enforcement guidelines, this change can be read as if the enforcement UCoC does not focus on protection of those harmed but protect those accused. Do not get me wrong, to protect people from false accusations or think about how to reintegrate people after they changed behaviour of harrassement is important. The committee could also think about Modul A-training and recommend two trainings for two different groups: UCoC orientation for (potentially) affected persons (aiming at empowerment) and UCoC orientation for everyone in the movement (aiming at information, sensitisation, education to be able to identify discrimination - which is the basis to take on responsibility for others like newcomers, person of marginalized group). And we ‘d also like to underline the need for appreciation for volunteers like admins and other functionaries who take on responsibility especially for harmed/marginalized users. Vera Krick (WMDE) (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Vera Krick (WMDE), how would marginalised users be identified for this purpose? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. In the reworking of training modules, focus was given more to the high-level content outline of the training as it relates to UCOC enforcement, rather than the implicit considerations that come with such a training. Any training that covers complex cases will certainly cover communication and support regarding those cases, though it may be beneficial to better specify this, thanks. Regarding an additional module for empowerment...I am opposed to seeking to empower specific groups and not others; Module A is explicitly intended to concisely inform people about how to engage with UCOC processes, independent of their identity. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Peter (Southwood) for your question and Vermont for your feedback and explanation, let me share some of my thoughts. To identify marginalized people we could address initiatives or wikimedia user groups directly that organize around a shared category of discrimination. But we could also make ourselves and our support structures more accessible especially for those who bear the risk to get harmed and/or those who themselves speak of such experience. At Wikimedia Deutschland a neighbouring team is developing a new programmatic focus named “marginalized knowledge” and my colleagues will try to work with initiatives and organizations not yet contributing to free knowledge and we hope to learn about addressing and attracting marginalized groups and how to support them in ways we maybe did not think of yet. Vermont, I understand that you like volunteers and all contributors to be treated fairly and I agree on this. But as in our societies equity is still a goal and not yet accomplished we might support those with more effort that have been left out in the past. That does not mean that we have to shorten support for others. Vera Krick (WMDE) (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Vera Krick (WMDE), It seems that I have not made myself clear, so I will try again. What I am trying to elicit is what exactly marginalised user means in this context, in sufficient detail that it will be objectively possible to identify any given user as being in this category or not, in a way that most people will be able to agree on, by comparing what is known about the user to the definition. I accept that there will be edge cases, but some way to distinguish between actually marginalised users and those who may claim to be marginalised but are not would be helpful when attempting to make concrete plans to accommodate them in the system. Before we can come to any useful agreement on whatwe should or can do to help a demographic, we first need to have a way for us all (or at least most of us, and we are from very wide range of cultural backgrounds) to agree on what and who we are talking about. We cannot assume that the term marginalised user means the same thing to all of us. If there is already a definition that applies in this context, please link to it. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Peter (Southwood) for your clarification. Our approach is different from what you have rightly identified as a problem (how do I know if someone is maginalized and how do I help these person to contribute to wikipedia). Since it is not my or anyone else’s job to define someone to be marginalised or to confirm someone’s affiliation to a group we have a different challenge. We try to develop support with volunteers and others organized already around a shared category of discrimination and making sure that by this approach we are attractive for people marginalised. Maybe I do not realisticly see the danger of false accouncements of beeing marginalised (and getting support), do you have examples or experience that you can share with me? Vera Krick (WMDE) (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Vera Krick (WMDE), If I understand you correctly, people will self-identify as marginalised, and we take their assessment at face value. I do not have any philosophical objection to that, but from a practical point of view I do not see how one would plan to accommodate their needs any differently from planning to accommodate the needs of everyone else, which would be to provide resources in their language of choice, which could be a big problem all by itself, and in a way could be an identifier for some of the marginalised groups. Do you think we should be planning to accommodate the illiterate, those who have no access to the internet, and others with a major technological barrier to contribution? If so, how? Alternatively is this more about minority groups whose viewpoints, philosophy, or way of life are denigrated or suppressed by their societies? If so, where do we draw a line between those who have conflicting beliefs and those who are objectively wrong? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

No revision of the enforcement guidelines will ever be acceptable per HUNDREDS of comments posted from the enforcement voteEdit

The Foundation received HUNDREDS of comments saying, in one form or another, the process for the Code itself was improper/abusive, that the contents of Code itself are unacceptable, and/or that the Code itself cannot be enforced because it has never been approved by the community.

Revisions to the enforcement guidelines are utterly irrelevant. They can never fix the underlying problem. If you put the revised enforcement guidelines up for a second vote, do not be surprised if the oppose percentage actually goes up due to people becoming more familiar with the utterly abusive and utterly illegitimate process of attempting to enforce a grossly botched Code that itself has never been accepted.

If you want a Code of Conduct, you need an actual community process. Note that having the Foundation select it's own representatives to control the process does NOT constitute community involvement, even if the Foundation's-chosen-representatives happen to be members of the community. Individuals are not the community, and that is doubly-true when the Foundation may choose fringe individuals. Also note that a "suggestion box" permitting individuals to post comments also does not constitute community involvement. "The community" is the collective, as represented by our official decision making processes. The community needs to be able to produce components of the Code, the Foundation can of course review and assist in that work, with each portion only accepted by Consensus decision making. The result of that process can then be submitted for Board approval. Alsee (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Another option exists. The communities (and I use the plural intentionally, since there is no strong evidence that there is a monolithic community, and quite a lot suggesting that there are at least one per project -- so probably hundreds of them) could independently formulate their own codes of conduct, and then compare them to each other and to the WMF's proposal, Items that are agreeable to all can be accepted by all, where there are differences, further negotiations can take place. I do not see anything stopping anyone from starting such a project. How much the various communities would participate is yet to be seen. They/we could even start from the current proposed UCOC to save time. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This may happen anyway, to a limited extent. Any community or group within a community, which disagrees sufficiently with the proposed UCOC and associated guidelines will probably debate it within their community and if and when they come to a consensus, will make it known to the rest. I would expect such discussion to be limited to the contentious issues, whatever they turn out to be for that specific community. If the counterproposals are realistic, reasonable and relevant, it would not make sense for WMF to ignore them.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Copy edits neededEdit

I posted this in 2021 at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki and was just now directed to post it here:

1. The first text in section 3.3, "Content vandalism and abuse of the projects", is not a sentence, but it should be in order to maintain parallel structure and be a grammatical continuation of the second clause in the lead of section 3.

2. The phrase "People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns" lacks parallel structure with the sentences around it. Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments on the content of the proposed UCoC Enforcement GuidelinesEdit

A few further copy editing comments after reading the proposal on this page:
  • This sentence from section 2.1 is not parseable: "The UCoC applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to Wikimedia projects." What does "interacts to Wikimedia projects" mean?
  • Section 2.1.1 has at least one parallel structure error. What does this mean? "In order to improve awareness, a link to the UCoC will be accessible on or at prominently communicated at in-person, remote, and hybrid events".
  • Section 2.2 uses the abbreviation "T&S", which is not explained on the page. Should "legal" be capitalized like the other terms in this section? Also in that section, the word "it" before "deems" has an unclear antecedent. Farther down, "Modules C" is an error of some sort. The phrase "members and applicants, and community-elected functionaries" is incorrect, perhaps missing the word "to" before "community". It is unclear to which part of the sentence the clause "who have signed" applies.
  • Section 3.1: grammar fixes are needed for these sentences: "Resources for translation must be provided by the Wikimedia Foundation when reports are provided in languages that designated individuals are not proficient" "Cases shall be resolved within a consistent time frame, with timely updates provided to participants if it is prolonged" "This section details a non-complete list of the different types of violations, along with the potential enforcement mechanism pertaining to it."
I skimmed the rest. At some point, someone who cares about the integrity of this document should get a skilled copy editor to review it carefully. Jonesey95 (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rinaku (t · c) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support --Brianyoumans (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying "direct involvement" in section 4.2Edit

Current text:

Individual members of the U4C do not have to resign from other positions (eg. local sysop, member of ArbCom, event safety coordinator). However they may not participate in processing cases they have been directly involved in as a result of their other positions.

Apologies for the late question. Does declining to warn or sanction an offender count as direct involvement in a case? Does it depend on how they decline? Tagging MJL and CLo since they're on the Revisions Committee. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Adrianmn1110 don't know if you got an answer privately from the revisions comm people (I would have hoped so), but as a non-member, this type of clarity is likely something to be resolved by a mix of the Building Committee and the 1st U4C to face the question.
For example, an arb that hears a full case and ultimately decided on a "not sanctionable behaviour" outcome has by any reasonable standard become involved. An admin that is asked to take a look and declining to engage is presumably not. Everything in in between. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

U4C Building CommitteeEdit

I think it is important that there is a election of the members of the U4C Building Committe. Please change the section 4.5 of the draft. If there is a voting after my experience it is possible to find good candidates and there is enough diversity in the selected candidates. A alternative sentence could be: "Members will be selected by a community vote." I like a Ranked voting as the preferred method for elections. It is important to discuss the guidelines of the committe here on Metawiki. So the committe is from my point of view a way to think about it in a structured way and not the decision making body. Decisions should be made where ever possible by a wider range of people.--Hogü-456 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about that. I wonder that I have not received an answer yet. I expected that it is an important point for more people. What is the reason that you worte in section 4.5 that " Members will be selected by the Vice President of Community Resilience and Sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation".--Hogü-456 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


> If any difference arises in the meaning between the English version and a translation, decisions will be based on the English version.
Did I understand correctly that if the WMF incorrectly translates the Code into another language and a user who does not know English violates something without knowing the original, will he be punished for the WMF's mistake? Iniquity (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So what's your idea for that situation? Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 14:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete chapter 1.1. And bring the text of the code in accordance with Basic English and Learning English which has been asked for about two years now. Iniquity (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
(wearing my volunteer hat) No, that's not a correct understanding. This is called "choice of language clause", which is pretty standard in almost all international contracts. If you look at our Terms of Use, there is a similar provision: "These Terms of Use were written in English (U.S.). While we hope that translations of these Terms of Use are accurate, in the event of any differences in meaning between the original English version and a translation, the original English version takes precedence." RamzyM (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is not quite suitable for documents that the cross-language community should implement. And even more so, as far as I understand, this is not a legal document? Iniquity (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, #2.1 recommends the UCoC to be added to the Terms of Use, which is a legal document. RamzyM (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
That is, I understand correctly that ethical standards are imposed on the community, but the ethical standards themselves are written in complex English and those who do not know it have no chance to understand these ethical standards? Iniquity (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Definitely agree that a community document should be written in the most simple English possible. I think the glossary on this guideline is a step in good direction. That could be combined with support from the fruition of the Foundation's plan to ramp up its translation/interpretation services, hopefully with better readability and translatability review of these kind of documents. (I'd like to point out that from a simple skim of their profiles, non-native speakers outnumbers the native English speaker members of both the Drafting Committee and Revisions Committee.)
I'm intrigued by your suggestion to completely delete 1.1, since it seems like you only have problem with the last sentence. What are the other problems in this provision that you propose to completely get rid of it? RamzyM (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
> I think the glossary on this guideline is a step in good direction.
Why do you need a glossary when you can rewrite the text?
> I'm intrigued by your suggestion to completely delete 1.1, since it seems like you only have problem with the last sentence. What are the other problems in this provision that you propose to completely get rid of it?
I have problems in general with trying to get attached to the English language, because half of the world's population does not know it. And unlike the terms of use, which no one reads, UCoC directly affects the behavior of users on the site/events etc. And if you try to explain to users what not to do in an unfamiliar language, then this will only repel them and create unnecessary errors in their behavior. Iniquity (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think I understand where you are coming from; I'm not a native English speaker either. But ultimately, the body/ies that will enforce the UCoC in the future will have to rely on the same version of text in order to help them interpret the provisions of the code. Usually that text would be in English, as is the practice in the international legal ecosystem (although, I remember that the international treaty that governs global treaty-making procedure did say that its "Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic"). But then we have Wikipedia projects in 329 languages; do we want to have all movement documents translated to all these languages, or certain language only (and then, where do we draw the line?). [This discussion also reminded me of this excellent Wikimania session (YouTube), featuring Anna, ProtoplasmaKid, Celio and Anasuya, all of them would have more authority to speak about this topic :)]. RamzyM (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
See, I don't mind the English text as the default for languages that the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't translated into. If the Foundation made a translation for a certain language, then referring to English is somehow strange.
Second, if we accept that the Foundation will not translate into 300 languages, then we need to simplify the English text as much as possible. Remove completely incomprehensible terms like "doxing", "good citizenship" etc. If these terms are needed for the English community, then make a separate document for them. Something like this:
Main Document - written in as simple English (as possible)
Document for the English community - written in complicated English
Now it turns out that the document is written in a complicated way and the Wikimedia Foundation disclaims any responsibility for the language barrier.
> This discussion also reminded me of this excellent Wikimania session (YouTube),
Thanks for the link, I'll definitely take a look! Iniquity (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Recommendation for the tool are a bit vagueEdit

The tool currently speaks about Privacy being important but not about in what way complaints are private. A straightforward reading would suggest that groups not mentioned in "Enforcement by type of violations" won't have access to the information. Practically, that means the Trust & Safety team doesn't have access to complaints for those caes where it doesn't have jurisdiction.

Given the Trust & Safety teams track record of destroying existing processes Wikidata had when people wanted to report privacy violations in Wikidata, I think it would be good to be clear about how the data is handeled and not allow the Trust & Safety to exert power that wasn't directed toward it. ChristianKl❫ 13:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Fatal dependency on Wikimedia Foundation staffEdit

This point has been made multiple times but it seems it needs reiterating. This policy has a fatal weakness: it doesn't provide any way to redress mistakes by the Wikimedia Foundation, yet at every step it relies on the Wikimedia Foundation, and particularly on its employees. Therefore it cannot provide any reassurance that it would help achieve its stated goals.

Don't tell me that we can improve the section "Enforcement by type of violations": first, many of those bodies are appointed by or subordinated to WMF staff; second, given there are so many options, it's clear that forum shopping will be a prime trick to pre-determine the outcomes of any process. The process to handle "Systemic failure to follow the UCoC" cannot help, because the "Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)" is itself subject to the Wikimedia Foundation staff, as the section "Selection, membership, and roles" gives Wikimedia Foundation staff at least 3 ways to unilaterally exclude anyone they wish, even without using the "any other eligibility requirements" wildcard. Nemo 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of Information and Right to be Forgotten?Edit

I might have missed it. Please help me understand. But when we are going to create actual "case files" about individuals, after how many years will these be deleted? And what's the process for an individual to get access to the information stored about them? Which jurisdiction will apply? US law? Or will it depend on the individuals citizenship? It worries me that this is barely mentioned. The minimum is – in my opinion – a maximum number of years of inactivity after which a record must be deleted.

There is this sentence: "Accused individuals shall have access to the particulars of the alleged violation made against them unless such access would risk danger or likely harm to the reporter or others’ safety". While this is part of what I ask for it's limited to the currently active case and does not include what's recorded in an individuals case file at this point in time.

To clarify: I'm not talking about false allegations. What I ask for is a chance for every individual – including the accused one – to learn and become better. TMg 19:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@RamzyM (WMF): Sorry to bother you, but I see you responding on the comparison page. I wonder if there is a reason that nobody here gets any response from WMF staff? Should we better stop the voting if this is on auto-play and nobody feels responsible any more? --TMg 07:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, the project team is actively monitoring this page (as well as with the members of the drafting committee(s), I assume). Alongside the result of the vote and materials from the written feedback columns attached to it on SecurePoll, questions and comments from Wikimedians on this page (including your particular inquiry) would be part of the feedback evaluated by the Board of Trustees in deciding whether to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why do they need to wait for the voting results to respond to a question? Does this imply that people won't get answers in case the voting ends with the guidelines being accepted as they are? --TMg 20:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that more attention should be spent on answering questions before the vote closes, as the responses could influence the vote (and rightly so). — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


This document uses the abbreviations "U4C" and "T&S" before they are defined. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Opt Out? SeriouslyEdit

Any website that forces you to opt-out of unsolicited e-mails can go screw itself. What is this, 2001? Change this process immediately and stop bothering people who DO NOT CARE. This account is retired anyway. Shadow2 (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Return to "Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines" page.