Jump to content

Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee.

Please remember to:

Discussion navigation:

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Local UCoC enforcement structure on zhwiki — recognition requirements and appeal routing to the U4C

[edit source]
Latest comment: 24 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dear members of the U4C,

I am an editor on Chinese Wikipedia, writing in my personal capacity. Our community is holding an RfC on our arbitration mechanism (zh:WP:RFC/ARB2026, comment period ending 12 July 2026 AoE); I have participated in it and have been preparing participant summaries for the eventual closer. This inquiry conveys questions raised during the discussion and does not represent the community or the RfC initiator.

One topic concerns establishing a local UCoC enforcement structure, with our Arbitration Committee handling UCoC-related complaints — including, under the option currently favoured in discussion, certain off-wiki conduct that affects on-wiki activity on Chinese Wikipedia (with strict intake criteria, and with severe cases such as threats to personal safety referred to the Foundation or global mechanisms rather than handled locally). The proposal designates the U4C as the appellate body for such cases. Before the community finalizes the outcome, clarification on the following would be helpful:

  1. Does the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines' provision for local enforcement structures cover jurisdiction over off-wiki conduct connected to a single project, or is off-wiki conduct considered to fall to the U4C in the first instance?
  2. Are there formal requirements or a recognition process for a local ArbCom to be considered a UCoC enforcement structure, or does a local consensus suffice?
  3. If our ArbCom rules on a UCoC-related case, what is the correct procedural route for an appeal to reach the U4C, and are there format or documentation requirements we should build into our local policy?
  4. Where a case spans multiple projects or languages, the current draft directs coordination with other communities and the U4C rather than unilateral local handling — does this match the U4C's expectations?

A link to this thread will be provided on the RfC page for community reference. Thank you — the aim is to ensure the local structure complements rather than conflicts with the global framework. Taiwania Justo (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Related discussions: Ombuds commission and T&S. Taiwania Justo (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Taiwania Justo Thank you for your questions. After discussing internally, we have concluded that:
  1. The UCoC Enforcement Guidelines allow local enforcement structures to handle off-wiki conduct if the local community defines off-wiki conduct to be within the scope of the local enforcement structure.
  2. The U4C believes that consensus in the ongoing RfC on the Chinese Wikipedia would be sufficient to recognize the Chinese Wikipedia ArbCom as an ArbCom, and thus as a high-level decision-making body.
  3. As the Chinese Wikipedia ArbCom would be considered a high-level decision-making body under the UCoC EG, its actions would generally not be appealable to the U4C unless the U4C finds a systemic failure of UCoC enforcement on Chinese Wikipedia, including its ArbCom. The local community may allow appeals of ArbCom actions to the U4C in their arbitration policy, and the ArbCom may permit appeals of its actions or refer cases to the U4C: These two conditions would allow the U4C to act on an appeal or case without a systemic failure. The correct procedures to refer a case or an appeal to the U4C are listed at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee#How to contact the U4C. There should be no need to build format or documentation requirements into your local policy.
  4. Yes. Cases outside the jurisdiction of local enforcement structures are best handled through appropriate crosswiki channels. These can include coordinating with other affected communities, contacting the stewards, or contacting the U4C.
For the U4C, Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
謹代表U4C提供以下中文譯本，如有衝突，請以Toadspike發佈的英文原文為準：
  1. 《通用行為準則執行規範》允許本地執行機構處理站外行為，前提是本地社群將站外行為界定在該本地執行機構的管轄範圍內。
  2. 本會認為，中文維基百科目前正在進行的意見徵求中的共識，已足以承認中文維基百科仲裁委員會為正式的仲裁委員會，並因此成為高級別決策機構。
  3. 根據《通用行為準則執行規範》，由於中文維基百科仲裁委員會將被視為高級別決策機構，其決策通常不能向U4C提出上訴，除非本會發現中文維基百科（包含其仲裁委員會）在執行UCoC時出現了系統性失敗。本地社群可以在其仲裁方針中允許將仲委會的決策上訴至U4C，且仲委會亦可允許針對其決策的上訴，或自行將案件移交給U4C：在這兩種情況之下，即使未發生系統性失敗，U4C亦可受理該上訴或案件。將案件或上訴移交給U4C的正確程序，已列於「Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee#How to contact the U4C」頁面中。中維的本地方針中應該不需要額外制定格式或文件要求。
  4. 是的。超出本地執行機構管轄範圍的案件，最好透過適當的跨維基管道來處理。這可以包括與其他受影響的社群進行協調、聯繫監管員，或是聯繫本會。
謹代表U4C， Borschts Talk 08:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee&oldid=30892620"