Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2025/Initial Proposed Changes

1. Clarify U4C's scope and jurisdiction

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 3.3.3 Appeals An action taken by an individual advanced rights holder will be appealable to a local or shared enforcement structure other than the U4C. If no such enforcement structure exists, then an appeal to the U4C can be permissible. Aside from this arrangement, local communities may allow appeals to a different individual advanced rights holder. [..] 5. Glossary [..] Arbitration Committee or ArbCom group of trusted users who serve as the final decision making group for some disputes. Each ArbCom's scope is defined by its community. An ArbCom may serve more than one project (e.g. Wikinews and Wikivoyage) and/or more than one language. For the purposes of these guidelines, this includes the Code of Conduct Committee for Wikimedia Technical Spaces and administrative panels. See also the definition on Meta-Wiki. [..] High-level decision-making body A group (i.e. U4C, ArbCom, Affcom) beyond which there can be no appeal. Different issues may have different high-level decision-making bodies. This term does not include a group of users participating in a discussion organized at a noticeboard and resulting in a decision, even if the results of that discussion cannot be appealed.

Proposed text 3.3.3 Appeals An action taken by an individual advanced rights holder will be appealable to a local or shared enforcement structure. Local communities may allow appeals to a different individual advanced rights holder. If no local enforcement structure exists, then an appeal to the U4C is permissible. [..] 5. Glossary [..] Arbitration Committee or ArbCom group of trusted users who serve as the final decision making group for some disputes. Each ArbCom's scope is defined by its community but an ArbCom is considered a high-level decision making body for the purpose of the enforcement guidelines only for the parts of the UCoC that are within its scope. An ArbCom may serve more than one project (e.g. Wikinews and Wikivoyage) and/or more than one language. For the purposes of these guidelines, this includes the Code of Conduct Committee for Wikimedia Technical Spaces and administrative panels. See also the definition on Meta-Wiki. [..] High-level decision-making body A group (i.e. U4C, ArbCom, Affcom, Stewards) beyond which there can be no appeal of UCoC enforcement. Different issues may have different high-level decision-making bodies. This term does not include a group of users participating in a discussion organized at a noticeboard and resulting in a decision, even if the results of that discussion cannot be appealed.

Charter

Current text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. It is a co-equal body to other high-level decision-making bodies such as NDA-Arbitration Committees and Stewards. The U4C determines if there has been a systemic failure by a Wikimedia group or community in enforcing the UCoC. [..] 4.2. Jurisdiction, proceedings, adjudication, appeals 4.2.1. Jurisdiction [..] Except in instances of systemic failures, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Global Council, Elections Committee, Technical Code of Conduct committee, stewards), warranting effective self-governance. The U4C should also respect the movement principle of decentralization, understanding that the UCoC should be enforced at the most relevant local level possible. [..]

Proposed text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. It is a co-equal body to other high-level decision-making bodies such as Arbitration Committees and Stewards. The U4C hears complaints related to UCoC enforcement where no other high-level decision-making body has jurisdiction, and determines if there has been a systemic failure by a Wikimedia group or community in enforcing the UCoC. [..] 4.2. Jurisdiction, proceedings, adjudication, appeals 4.2.1. Jurisdiction [..] Except in instances of systemic failures, the U4C will not have jurisdiction to enforce the UCoC when a high-level decision-making body is able to (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Elections Committee, Technical Code of Conduct committee, Stewards), warranting effective self-governance. The U4C should also respect the movement principle of decentralization, understanding that the UCoC should be enforced at the most relevant local level possible. [..]

Discussion (scope and jurisdiction)

Regarding the change to the definition of "Arbitration Committee" in the glossary: to me it feels awkward to join the two independent thoughts with "but". Perhaps the sentence can be rewritten to something like the following: For the purposes of the enforcement guidelines, an Arbitration Committee is considered to be a high-level decision-making body for the parts of the UCoC that are within its scope, as defined by its community. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

"is considered a high-level decision making body for the purpose of the enforcement guidelines" Should this be "enforcement of the guidelines" ? otherwise I do not understand this sentence very well.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if we even need the "purpose of the enforcement guidelines" language given that it's true for both the EG and Charter and because the scope of the glossary is apparent given the documents it is in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

2. Clarify that the U4C conducts its own elections

Charter

Current text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. [..] The committee provides quality assurance of UCoC-related training materials, and oversees the annual UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines (EG) community review. [..] 2. Elections and Terms 2.1. Member Eligibility Each member and candidate must: [..] Have not been blocked on any Wikimedia project nor have an active event ban in the past one year. Candidates who are blocked may appeal to the Election Committee, who may make an exception. [..] The Elections Committee will have the final authority to decide whether candidates meet eligibility requirements. [..] 2.4. Elections Annual elections to select voting members of the U4C will be overseen by the U4C and administered by the Elections Committee, in cooperation with the U4C. [..] 2.5. Voting Process [..] Voter eligibility will be decided by the Elections Committee. [..] 4.2.1. Jurisdiction [..] Except in instances of systemic failures, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Global Council, Elections Committee, Technical Code of Conduct committee, stewards), warranting effective self-governance. [..] 5. Glossary [..]

Proposed text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. [..] The committee provides quality assurance of UCoC-related training materials, oversees the annual UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines (EG) community review, and conducts the annual elections for members of the U4C as well as conducting any special elections that may occur. [..] 2. Elections and Terms 2.1. Member Eligibility Each member and candidate must: [..] Have not been blocked on any Wikimedia project nor have an active event ban in the past one year. Candidates who are blocked may appeal to the U4C Elections Committee, who may make an exception. [..] The U4C Elections Committee will have the final authority to decide whether candidates meet eligibility requirements. [..] 2.4. Elections Annual elections to select voting members of the U4C will be overseen by the U4C and administered by the U4C Elections Committee. [..] 2.5. Voting Process [..] Voter eligibility will be decided by the U4C Elections Committee. [..] 4.2.1. Jurisdiction [..] Except in instances of systemic failures, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Global Council, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, Technical Code of Conduct committee, stewards), warranting effective self-governance. [..] 5. Glossary [..] U4C Elections Committee: The U4C Elections Committee for U4C elections and special elections are run by U4C members not currently standing for election. Other members may be added to the U4C Elections Committee, at the discretion of the U4C members. If there are no U4C members, then the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee may run the election.

Discussion (own elections)

• I could understand that the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, if need be, would only step in with elections for committees that directly report to the WMF or its Board, like ArbCom, GRDC, etc. — For an independent body like the U4C, it might make more sense to propose a more community-focused committee for the long term, maybe with Stewards, ArbCom members, etc. Have you considered this option? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Does it make sense to establish a committee? maybe it's better to list the community groups which should take care of the election in the (remote) case that no u4c member is available? (I'm fine with Stewards/GS taking care of this, but that's my personal opinion) --Civvì (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• "... at the discretion of the U4C members": could you please specify if this refers to all current members or those that are not standing for election. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with this. Or maybe the Elections Committee co-opts other members? Sdrqaz (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• It may be helpful to specify how you determine that someone is not standing for election. Is that because they are ineligible, by own statement, otherwise? Effeietsanders (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that that level of granularity is needed here; this is the overall policy document and it need not have every interaction spelled out. There is room for the U4C to set its own internal procedures regarding this. All that said, I think we primarily rely on the staggered nature of the U4C elections (i.e. only half of members are up for election each year), so the intent is that those who don't need to stand for election would run the election. Members who intend on resigning rather than running again could also serve I suppose, though they would need to remove themselves from the electcom if they did run. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to introduce a lot of procedure, but rather to be precise in language. Now that I read it again, there's a few more elements that is unclear. A more precise version could simply be:

  U4C Elections Committee: The U4C Elections Committee is responsible for U4C elections and special elections. It consists of [all / 3 / some] U4C [voting / voting or non-voting] members [who will not be a candidate in / who serve a term that extends beyond / without a conflict of interest regarding] the upcoming election. Other [non-U4C / U4C] members may be added to the U4C Elections Committee, at the discretion of the U4C. [If there are no U4C members, then / Alternatively, the U4C may request] the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee may run the election.

  Some of these choices are quite meaningful, and should not be left up for interpretation. If you want to leave it flexible, it's perhaps best to do that explicitly:

  • How big is this committee? If you want to leave that flexible, insert 'some'.
  • Who can be a member? If you want to ensure they are still a member after the election (e.g. to evaluate and avoid last minute candidacies) you can choose so, or you can keep it explicitly flexible by just ensuring lack of COI.
  • The added members, are those also supposed to be U4C members, or is members referring to committee members?
  • What does 'if there are no members' refer to? I tried to rephrase, but an easier way out would be to just allow the U4C the option to delegate entirely to the WMF Elections Committee without conditions. E.g. if there are members, but they are just too busy.

  Effeietsanders (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Effeietsanders and Sdrqaz: I've taken an attempt at better wording this at Special:Diff/28454581. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that resolves some issues. A few would remain:

  • "Existing members of the committee...": 'the committee' could refer to either U4C or the U4C elections Committee. Could you just replace 'the committee' with the full name?
  • "May be delegated..." who makes this decision? ('is not possible' is phrased broadly, probably by design. I would pick either pick the U4C itself or some 'higher authority' that could step in, for example when all U4C members resign. I guess that would be the Board or a WMF officer, such as the General Counsel?

  It seems that in your draft you chose 'all current members not standing for the upcoming election'. An even more general approach would be a text such as "The U4C will create the U4C elections committee to oversee matters related to an upcoming U4C election of special election, including administration and candidate eligibility. The members of the U4C elections committee will be selected from U4C members who are not a candidate in the upcoming election. Other community members who will not be a candidate may be added by the U4C. The U4C, or the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel, may also choose to delegate the election administration instead to a committee of Stewards or the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee."

  (I don't know if the General Counsel would be the appropriate officer, but this could be verified). Effeietsanders (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Effeietsanders: Reworded at Special:Diff/28456713. I would like to push back on the idea that some upper authority would decide who runs the election in case we can't form an election committee. Stewards or the WMF Elections Committee may volunteer to step in and take responsibility. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's mostly that I don't like the idea that it's unclear who's supposed to make the decision. I'm fine with assigning that to the WMF Elections Commission too! (they are well-defined and they could either decide they will run it, or give it to a committee of Stewards)

  Personally, I think the General Counsel has a bunch of these fallback decision powers, and can be trusted not to abuse them. But that's not the point here: I'm just trying to advocate for unambiguous language and procedures. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  Right now it is assumed that at least one of the Stewards/WMF Elections Committee will be okay with taking the responsibility. Deciding who takes responsibility will not be much of a concern in my opinion. People have also expressed that it should be handled by volunteers and not the WMF. It looks like the WMF Elections Committee and the General Counsel are both working for the WMF. Furthermore, it might not make sense to assign these roles when its not in their job description. (In my opinion the WMF ElectCom remains a fallback of a fallback, in case no Stewards volunteer to step in) 0xDeadbeef (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

3. Amend rules around quorum

Charter

Current text 3.4. Quorum The U4C can seat with any number of members, but no decision or vote can be taken by the Committee unless the quorum of 50% (8 members) of the voting members (16 members) is attained. When there is no quorum, the U4C will continue to work on matters where no vote is needed and call a special election if needed. [..] 4.2.1.1. Systemic failures Issues related to systemic failure can be raised by anyone and the U4C may choose to open an investigation with at least majority support. If the Foundation or a high-level decision making body requests an investigation into a systemic failure, the U4C will open an investigation. A good faith disagreement over how to interpret the UCoC is not enough to determine that a high-level decision making body has systematically failed to enforce the code.

Proposed text 3.4. Quorum The U4C can seat with any number of members, but no decision can be taken by the Committee unless supported by 5 voting members, or 8 in decisions relating to a systemic failure to enforce the UCoC. In order to pass, a decision must be supported by over 50% of participating voting members, other than members who have abstained. When there is no quorum, the U4C will continue to work on matters where no vote is needed and call a special election if needed. [..] 4.2.1.1. Systemic failures Issues related to systemic failure can be raised by anyone and the U4C may choose to open an investigation. If the Foundation or a high-level decision making body requests an investigation into a systemic failure, the U4C will open an investigation. A good faith disagreement over how to interpret the UCoC is not enough to determine that a high-level decision making body has systematically failed to enforce the code.

Discussion (quorum)

• Am I reading this correct, that 5 minority members that agree with each other can simply open a meeting amongst themselves and make binding decisions under this change? That seems a bit low. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps we can add a sentence like: "Decisions should usually be decided upon through communication between all U4C members, except for decisions that could affect other U4C members." Just an initial draft, will have to think more on the second part too. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  There were two intentions behind the proposed quorum change - firstly to fix the horribly unclear current text in the charter, second to allow the committee to operate on non-systemic cases with under 8 members. The proposed text sets the functional minimum overall committee size at 8, with over 50% supporting to pass votes. The number can dip below 8 so long as the support % increases, to a minimum of five with 100% support. I don't think there would be scenarios where five members of a larger committee would get together and secretly vote for things, the U4C still has internal procedures around votes and not everything need be codified into the charter text.

  That word salad said, I think it's fair to question whether we want to allow a smaller committee (under 8 members) to operate. Either way we will try to clean up the text to be more clear on what exactly quorum means and when it applies, but we would welcome discussion on whether people are comfortable with a smaller committee operating. A lot of our cases are relatively low impact in nature, and don't necessarily require 8+ members in order to make a fair and balanced decision. Systemic failure cases of course should require a minimum of 8, and under the proposed text goes further and requires a minimum of 8 supporting for the vote to pass. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  The committee is purposefully built to require a diverse membership source population, having it operate with only 1/3 of the members may defeat that goal. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• The requirement of 8 members to address systemic failures is too high. A project could easily form a dysfunctional Arbitration Committee (for instance, if the administrators simply appoint themselves as arbitrators), and this would place them outside of U4C's jurisdiction. If most of the 16 U4C seats remain vacant or inactive, as is currently the case, systemic failures will likely go unresolved. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is a good point. From U4C's own discussions, we wanted to set a higher bar for us to declare systemic failures than for normal decisions, but 8 might be too high as you've said. (and it will also depend on how the next election goes) 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  Vacancies may be a feature - the community may reject systemic issues within the U4C itself by not electing members to it. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is a good point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I would similarly not assign a specific number to this - I trust that the U4C is smart enough for us not to have to apply all these rules. Leaderboard (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion: I would distangle the 'quorum' and the 'majority required for a decision' to separate articles. If there is no quorum, usually that means you cannot even open/hear the case (after all, you can't make a decision anyway - so why expose privacy sensitive data). In the 'majority required for a decision' you can include all kind of rules, including that an absolute number of supporters is needed, in addition to the percentage. This may be especially helpful to distangle if you choose to get different percentages in the future for certain decisions. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Much improved, thanks. One confusing part to me in the new language: what does "at the same time" attempt to do? In its current phrasing, it suggests that people may retract their vote or something? Or does this mean that in addition to the minimum number of supporters, also a minimum percentage of support is required?

  This could be avoided by framing everything in the positive (although there are more ways to accomplish this) and splitting the sentence: "The Committee makes decisions by majority vote. For a vote to pass, it has to be supported by more than 50% of the voting members and it has to be supported by at least 5 voting members. For a vote on decisions relating to a systemic failure to enforce the UCoC to pass, it has to be supported by more than 50% of the voting members and it has to be supported by at least 8 voting members." Effeietsanders (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  We're kinda past the time to make edits, but my last edits should have made it clearer. I won't enact edits from future comments unless there's something really, really wrong (like a typo). Thanks for your feedback though. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes that makes it clearer, thanks. I was just trying to respond to the new version as I started to put together that you're redrafting this -- I'm sure it's explained somewhere, but I missed it, sorry! :). Effeietsanders (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

4. Amend language around recusals

Charter

Current text 3.8. Recusal A U4C member may recuse themselves from any work, or from any aspect of the work, with or without explanation, and it’s required when a conflict of interest arises. This situation may result in a member of the U4C participating in the discussions about the work, but not the voting process. Any U4C member participating in their U4C member capacity regarding work from a project or affiliate they participate in has the responsibility of the decision to recuse themselves. Members of the U4C will not participate in the work if they have been directly involved with the work as a result of their other positions or other activities. This decision is still subject to a vote by the whole membership of the U4C. Any U4C member may choose to withdraw from the recusal vote, but still participate in discussions of recusals from the work. Typically, a conflict of interest regarding U4C work includes personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties involved in the work. Previous interactions with the parties as routine editor, administrator or U4C interactions are not usually grounds for recusal.

Proposed text 3.8. Recusal A U4C member may recuse themselves from any work, or from any aspect of the work, with or without explanation. When not directly involved in the issue, this situation may result in a member of the U4C participating in the discussions about the work, but not the voting process. When directly involved in the issue the U4C member will neither vote nor participate in the discussion except as a community member. A U4C member must recuse themselves when a conflict of interest arises, and the U4C may require a member to recuse themselves by vote should the member refuse to do so. In these cases, the member should refrain from any participation in the case, whether they decide to recuse themselves or are recused by vote. Typically, a conflict of interest regarding U4C work includes personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties involved in the work. Previous interactions with the parties as routine editor, administrator or U4C interactions are not usually grounds for recusal.

Discussion (recusals)

• This text seems internally contradictory because some language is repeated. I would suggest to restructure: first state what the standard for recusal should be (the last paragraph). Then discuss who decides (in first instance the member, in second instance the committee), and then discuss the consequences. The current structure suggests a different set of consequences if self-recusal than if the committee makes the decision. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Effeietsanders: Rewritten at Special:Diff/28454707. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Much clearer, thanks.Effeietsanders (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

5. Make terms explicitly staggered

Charter

Current text 1.3. Membership The U4C will consist of 16 community voting members and up to two non-voting members appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Each voting member fulfills a two-year term, except the inaugural election (see 3.2). The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members and select additional support staff as requested by the U4C. [..] 2. Elections and Terms [..] 2.3. Terms U4C membership will be for a two-year term, except the first election. For the first election, Regional Candidates will serve two-year terms and at-large members will serve a one year term.

Proposed text 1.3. Membership The U4C will consist of 16 community voting members and up to two non-voting members appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members and select additional support staff as requested by the U4C. [..] 2. Elections and Terms [..] 2.3. Terms U4C membership will be for a two-year term by default. Shorter terms may be filled as a result of a resignation or a special election or to fill a vacant seat. Half of the community-at-large and half of the regional seats will be elected to a two-year term each year. If necessary, the U4C Elections Committee will decide how to allocate seats between two-year and one-year terms.

Discussion (staggered terms)

• What about "(...)how to allocate (s)elected candidates/members to seats with different term lengths."? (it's weird to allocate seats if we don't decide who sits on which seat - and it also seems possible to have a 0.8 year term and a 1.8 year term?) Effeietsanders (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Done here 0xDeadbeef (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest all the members serve for a 3 years term, I suggest also in the perspective to simplify the election process, to remove completely the regional seats rule and also to bring the number of seats to eight only (a 3 years term saves a lot of time for the U4C, as the Committee is now also the organizer of the elections - Mention of diversity being removed and empty regional seats being filled with at large elected member (60%), the dedicated regional seats rule has no more reason to exist - Prevention work being removed from the texts means less work for the Committee, so 8 seats are enough. It's also the number of U4C members elected by the Community in the first election, so perhaps this was a sign about how big the Community believes the U4C should be). Waltercolor (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  This sounds like an interesting proposal to consider, but for this round I would encourage us to focus on things we think are broken and simple language/clarification issues. Realistically, the U4C has only been active for a short while, so we're still trying to learn what numbers work well. But I would be in favor of revisiting this question in a year or two! Effeietsanders (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, these are interesting suggestions - I think a bigger committee than 8 would be ideal, both to ensure that power is spread appropriately and to handle the workload (which has been quite high for 8 people so far). We will discuss internally, however, and even if these suggestions don't make it in this year (the intent is to work around the edges rather than make sweeping changes for now), we will keep them listed for future discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

6. The U4C also reviews its Charter during Annual Review

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C) [..] 4.1 Purpose and scope The U4C monitors reports of UCoC breaches, and may conduct additional investigations and take actions where appropriate. The U4C will regularly monitor and assess the state of UCoC enforcement. It may suggest suitable changes to UCoC and the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines for the Wikimedia Foundation and the community to consider, but may not change either document on its own. When necessary, the U4C will assist the Wikimedia Foundation in handling cases. [..]

Proposed text 4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C) [..] 4.1 Purpose and scope The U4C monitors reports of UCoC breaches, and may conduct additional investigations and take actions where appropriate. The U4C will regularly monitor and assess the state of UCoC enforcement. It may suggest suitable changes to UCoC, the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines, and U4C Charter for the Wikimedia Foundation and the community to consider, but may not change these documents on its own. When necessary, the U4C will assist the Wikimedia Foundation in handling cases. [..]

Charter

Current text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. It is a co-equal body to other high-level decision-making bodies such as NDA-Arbitration Committees and Stewards. The U4C determines if there has been a systemic failure by a Wikimedia group or community in enforcing the UCoC. The committee provides quality assurance of UCoC-related training materials, and oversees the annual UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines (EG) community review.

Proposed text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. It is a co-equal body to other high-level decision-making bodies such as NDA-Arbitration Committees and Stewards. The U4C determines if there has been a systemic failure by a Wikimedia group or community in enforcing the UCoC. The committee provides quality assurance of UCoC-related training materials, and oversees the annual UCoC, Enforcement Guidelines (EG), and U4C charter community review.

7. The U4C can appoint non-voting members on its own

Charter

Current text 1.3. Membership The U4C will consist of 16 community voting members and up to two non-voting members appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Each voting member fulfills a two-year term, except the inaugural election (see 3.2). The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members and select additional support staff as requested by the U4C.

Proposed text 1.3. Membership The U4C will consist of 16 community voting members and up to two non-voting members appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Each voting member fulfills a two-year term, except the inaugural election (see 3.2). The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members and select additional support staff as requested by the U4C. The U4C may also appoint up to four non-voting members to fill gaps in experience or knowledge on the committee.

Discussion (appointing non-voting members)

• I find this text somewhat confusing. How about the following, which I suspect is in line with what you're proposing:

  The U4C will consist of up to 16 community voting members and up to six non-voting members appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Each voting member fulfills a two-year term, except the inaugural election (see 3.2).

  The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members. The Wikimedia Foundation may also select additional support staff as requested by the U4C. The U4C may also appoint up to four non-voting members to fill gaps in experience or knowledge on the committee.

  I think this removes some possible confusion about which clause applies exactly to what. Also, it clarifies that the number of voting members can become less. You could also clarify that voting members are selected by the election process outlines elsewhere? Effeietsanders (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  It would also be helpful to clarify the term limits for the non-voting members. Would they serve for two years, the same as the elected members? If the goal is to fill knowledge gaps, one-year terms might be more effective, allowing the committee to better adapt to its changing composition. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Excellent clarification indeed. I would also be fine with keeping it open to the committee (for terms of at most two years), because I suspect that many of these knowledge gaps are systemic (i.e. not likely to be filled through elections), and justifiable because the onboarding just takes too long to make a one-year term worthwhile. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  We've discussed this a bit internally; I personally would prefer to leave it open to the committee to decide (not everything need be codified) on a per-case basis, but we could put in something about a maximum term and that non-voting members can be dismissed early. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  See Special:Diff/28456886 0xDeadbeef (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  Note that this is internally still inconsistent regarding the number of non-voting members (max 2 vs 4 vs 4+2). Not the most problematic as they are non-voting, but still :) Given that you put limits at each 'appointer' of non-voting members, there's really no need to specify the maximum in the first sentence - the easiest would be to remove that.

  I would suggest to remove the word 'community' because it's superfluous with the article that describes how they are selected - but that's a minor detail. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Effeietsanders: The final version of the changes can be viewed at Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2025/Proposed Changes#Proposal C: New U4C Members which doesn't have the issue of inconsistency. I think its a good enough version :) 0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

8. Remove unused/duplicate language

Charter

Current text 2. Elections and Terms [..] 2.4. Elections Annual elections to select voting members of the U4C will be overseen by the U4C and administered by the Elections Committee, in cooperation with the U4C. For the first election, the U4C Building Committee (U4CBC) will take the place of the U4C. Candidates will have to satisfy the membership requirements stated in section 2.1. The inaugural election of the U4C will be held as soon as practical, following the successful completion of the U4C Charter ratification process. [..] 2.5. Voting Process [..] After the first session of the U4C, the U4CBC will be dissolved and the U4C will begin work as soon as possile. [..] 3.6. Structured Support Some work may necessitate certain structured support. The U4C may form subcommittees or designate members for particular tasks or roles as appropriate to address the work of the U4C. [..] 3.9.1. Relationship with other movement government structures According to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines, depending on the situation, the U4C can act as a high level decision-making body about the UCoC and as a peer group to other high level decision making bodies. The Committee's role is to provide resources for communities on UCoC best practices and act as the final recourse in situations where there are systemic issues by local groups to enforce the UCoC on their own.

Proposed text 2. Elections and Terms [..] 2.4. Elections Annual elections to select voting members of the U4C will be overseen by the U4C and administered by the Elections Committee, in cooperation with the U4C. Candidates will have to satisfy the membership requirements stated in section 2.1. [..] 2.5. Voting Process [..] 3.6. Structured Support The U4C may form subcommittees or designate members for particular tasks or roles as appropriate to address the work of the U4C. [..] 3.9.1. Relationship with other movement government structures According to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines, depending on the situation, the U4C can act as a high level decision-making body about the UCoC and as a peer group to other high level decision making bodies.

9. Remove recommendations language

Charter

Current text 3.5. Subcommittees The U4C Building Committee suggests that at least two subcommittees are created within the U4C at the time of formation. One subcommittee for the prevention, training and reports pertaining to the U4C work and the second subcommittee for the review and handling of cases.

Proposed text

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 2.1 Notification and confirmation of the UCoC [..] We recommend that the UCoC be added to Wikimedia Terms of Use. [..] 2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training [..] The U4C Building Committee, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, will develop and implement training to provide a common understanding of the UCoC and skills for its implementation. It is recommended that relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial to providing a complete view of the UCoC. [..] We recommend participants who complete a module should have the option of having their completion publicly acknowledged. [..] 3.1.1 Providing resources for processing cases [..] Communities should continue to handle enforcement through existing means where they do not conflict with the UCoC. [..] 3.3 Principles and recommendations for enforcement structures Where possible, we encourage existing enforcement structures to take up the responsibility of receiving reports of and dealing with UCoC violations, in accordance with the guidelines stated here. To ensure that enforcement of the UCoC remains consistent across the movement, we recommend that the following baseline principles should be applied when handling UCoC violations. 3.3.1 Fairness in process We encourage enforcement structures in developing and maintaining supportive conflict-of-interest policies. These should help admins or others determine when to abstain or disengage from a report when they are closely involved in the issue. All parties will usually have the opportunity to give their perspective on the issues and evidence, and feedback from others can also be invited to help provide more information, perspective, and context. This may be limited to protect privacy and safety. 3.3.2 Transparency of process The U4C, in line with its purpose and scope as defined in 4.1, shall provide documentation on the effectiveness of UCoC enforcement actions and their relation to common violations throughout the movement. They should be supported by the Wikimedia Foundation in conducting this research. The goal of this documentation is to aid enforcement structures in developing best practices for enforcing the UCoC. [..] For Wikimedia-specific conversations occurring on related space hosted on third party platforms (e.g. Discord, Telegram, etc.), Wikimedia's Terms of Use may not apply. They are covered by that specific website's Terms of Use and conduct policies. Nevertheless, the behavior of Wikimedians on related space hosted on third party platforms can be accepted as evidence in reports of UCoC violations. We encourage Wikimedia community members who moderate Wikimedia-related spaces on third party platforms to incorporate respect of the UCoC into their policies. The Wikimedia Foundation should seek to encourage best practices for third-party platforms that discourage the continuation of on-wiki conflicts to their spaces. 3.3.3 Appeals [..] To achieve this goal, we recommend that enforcement structures should consider different factors when reviewing appeals. [..]

Proposed text 2.1 Notification and confirmation of the UCoC [..] The UCoC is part of the Wikimedia Terms of Use. [..] 2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training [..] The U4C Building Committee, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, will develop and implement training to provide a common understanding of the UCoC and skills for its implementation. Relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial to providing a complete view of the UCoC. [..] Participants who complete a module should have the option of having their completion publicly acknowledged. [..] 3.1.1 Providing resources for processing cases [..] Communities handle enforcement through existing means where they do not conflict with the UCoC. [..] 3.3 Principles and recommendations for enforcement structures Where possible, existing local enforcement structures have the responsibility of receiving reports of and dealing with UCoC violations, in accordance with the guidelines stated here. To ensure that enforcement of the UCoC remains consistent across the movement, the following baseline principles should be applied when handling UCoC violations. 3.3.1 Fairness in process Enforcement structures should develop and maintain supportive conflict-of-interest policies. These should help admins or others determine when to abstain or disengage from a report when they are closely involved in the issue. All parties will usually have the opportunity to give their perspective on the issues and evidence, and feedback from others can also be invited to help provide more information, perspective, and context. This may be limited to protect privacy and safety. 3.3.2 Transparency of process The U4C, in line with its purpose and scope as defined in 4.1, provides documentation on the effectiveness of UCoC enforcement actions and their relation to common violations throughout the movement, supported by the Wikimedia Foundation in conducting this research. The goal of this documentation is to aid enforcement structures in developing best practices for enforcing the UCoC. [..] For Wikimedia-specific conversations occurring on related space hosted on third party platforms (e.g. Discord, Telegram, etc.), Wikimedia's Terms of Use may not apply. They are covered by that specific website's Terms of Use and conduct policies. Nevertheless, the behavior of Wikimedians on related space hosted on third party platforms can be accepted as evidence in reports of UCoC violations. Wikimedia community members who moderate Wikimedia-related spaces on third party platforms should incorporate respect of the UCoC into their policies. The Wikimedia Foundation should seek to encourage best practices for third-party platforms that discourage the continuation of on-wiki conflicts to their spaces. 3.3.3 Appeals [..] To achieve this goal, enforcement structures should consider different factors when reviewing appeals. [..]

Discussion (recommendations)

• In its original phrasing, it was an encouragement, and then vague language is easier to get away with. The new text reads: " Wikimedia community members who moderate Wikimedia-related spaces on third party platforms should incorporate respect of the UCoC into their policies".

  What exactly does "should" mean here? Does it mean "must", "are assumed to" (i.e. it's hard to imagine anything else) or "are encouraged to"? I suspect the former.

  What does "respect of the UCoC" mean exactly? I'm afraid the English isn't clear to me: does it mean it should abide by the UCoC? Or that they should be respectful? I suspect the former.

It may be worthwhile to generally avoid "should", or define it up front. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

10. Remove homewiki rule from glossary

Charter

Current text 5. Glossary [..] Community at Large group: The Community at Large group is the group of the U4C Community elected representatives being active on any Wikimedia project. However no more than two members can be elected from the same home wiki, this number including the members elected In the Regional part distribution group as well.

Proposed text 5. Glossary [..] Community at Large group: The Community at Large group is the group of the U4C Community elected representatives being active on any Wikimedia project.

11. Charter/EG/UCoC changes need 60% support

Charter

Current text 4.3.2. Changes to the Charter, the Enforcement Guidelines or the UCoC Changes to the Charter, the Enforcement Guidelines or the UCoC require community approval. The U4C will organize at its sole discretion the annual review of the UCoC, the Enforcement Guidelines and the Charter. It comprises at least: [..] A voting phase Votes will be cast by community members with > 60% or > 66% approval [..]

Proposed text 4.3.2. Changes to the Charter, the Enforcement Guidelines or the UCoC Changes to the Charter, the Enforcement Guidelines or the UCoC require community approval. The U4C will organize at its sole discretion the annual review of the UCoC, the Enforcement Guidelines and the Charter. It comprises at least: [..] A voting phase Votes will be cast by community members with at least 60% approval [..]

Discussion (60% support)

• Would it be better to have the U4C apply discretion on what counts as sufficient support instead of an explicit 60% minimum? Leaderboard (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting thought @Leaderboard. How would this work given that we're using SecurePoll and so it's a literal vote in the way that, say, Steward confirmations are not (to name a process where there is a decision about sufficient support). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 It can be as simple as saying something like "The U4C committee will decide the minimum support percentage required after the election", and setting the minimum in such a way that it is not illogically low (addressing Xaosflux's concern). That way, you'll be able to take a holistic and fair view. Leaderboard (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  No. for example, We're low on members, take anyone over 30%... - members should certainly require affirmative community support. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux this percentage is only for votes on changes of UCoC, EG and Charter, not for U4C membership (section 2.5), the 60% there remains the same. --Civvì (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification, I think this should certainly have a minimum brightline - 60% seems OK. I don't think I'd want the sitting committee deciding that changes that are actively opposed could meet a "minimum support percentage", especially if that could be less than the actual oppose percentage for a change. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• I assume it's not the intention to limit the vote to community members of the committee who were elected with at least 60% approval. What about: "Eligible proposals must be put to a community vote by the U4C Elections Committee at the next regular U4C election. In order to pass, it must be supported by at least 60% of the eligible votes on that proposal." This accomplishes a few things: 1) once it goes through all the steps, it must be put to a vote, it is not discretionary. 2) it makes clear when it should be put to a vote. 3) it clarifies which votes are counted (i.e. if people skip the question, the are not included for the 60%) 4) it clarifies only people eligible in that election can vote. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion. I'd point out that the annual review elections are separate from U4C elections. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

12. Language adjustments and tense changes

Charter

Current text 2. Elections and Terms 2.1. Member Eligibility Each member and candidate must: [..] Be a registered member of at least one Wiki project for at least 365 days and have a minimum of 500 edits. [..] 2.6. Vacancies If there is an empty seat, whether because of resignations, removals, or no candidate was chosen for a regional seat in an election, the U4C may leave the seat empty and temporarily fill it during the next election, or the U4C may call a special election. An additional option in the case of resignation or removal is that the U4C may appoint a member who ran within the most recent election and received at least 60% support. [..] 3.9.1. Relationship with other movement government structures [..] Requests for advice or interpretation or case referrals should generally be made on Meta-wiki, except when not appropriate for privacy reasons. For situations involving privacy, use of the dedicated email address for the U4C is expected. [..] 4.1. UCoC and Enforcement Training Resources The U4C will oversee the creation and maintenance of training resources, as well as coordinating with the Wikimedia Foundation on translation of such training resources. Three basic training modules shall cover as mandated in the enforcement guidelines will include: Orientation Identification and reporting Complex cases and appeals These modules will be publicly accessible, on platforms such as on learn.wiki, and must be translated in cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation into as many languages as possible. The list or number of languages will be determined by the U4C. Alongside providing training modules, the U4C can explore and support other ways of training, collaborating with various community stakeholders such as but not limited to the Wikimedia Foundation and affiliates. The U4C can also share the best practices of UCoC violations and related matters and offer quality assurance and certification of UCoC training resources created by other movement stakeholders upon request. Just like the UCoC itself defines minimums, and invites and encourages communities to build upon those minimum standards for behavior, movement stakeholders are welcome to build upon and improve the basic training resources.

Proposed text 2. Elections and Terms 2.1. Member Eligibility Each member and candidate must: [..] Be a registered member of at least one Wikimedia project for at least 365 days and have a minimum of 500 edits. [..] 2.6. Vacancies If there is an empty seat, whether because of resignations, removals, or no candidate was chosen for a regional seat in an election, the U4C may leave the seat empty and temporarily fill it during the next election, or the U4C may call a special election. In the case of resignation or removal, the U4C may appoint as a member a candidate who ran within the most recent election and received at least 60% support. [..] 3.9.1. Relationship with other movement government structures [..] Requests for advice or interpretation or case referrals should generally be made on Meta-Wiki, except when not appropriate for privacy reasons. For situations involving privacy, use of the dedicated email address for the U4C is expected. [..] 4.1. UCoC and Enforcement Training Resources The U4C oversees the creation and maintenance of training resources, as well as coordinates with the Wikimedia Foundation on translation of such training resources. Three basic training modules, as mandated in the enforcement guidelines, will include: Orientation Identification and reporting Complex cases and appeals These modules will be publicly accessible, on platforms such as on learn.wiki, and must be translated in cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation into as many languages as possible. The list or number of languages will be determined by the U4C. Alongside providing training modules, the U4C may explore and support other ways of training, collaborating with various community stakeholders such as but not limited to the Wikimedia Foundation and affiliates. The U4C also shares the best practices of UCoC violations and related matters and offer quality assurance and certification of UCoC training resources created by other movement stakeholders upon request. Just like the UCoC itself defines minimums, and invites and encourages communities to build upon those minimum standards for behavior, movement stakeholders are welcome to build upon and improve the basic training resources.

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 1. UCoC Enforcement Guidelines These Enforcement Guidelines describe how the community and Wikimedia Foundation will be able to achieve the goals of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This includes, among other topics: promoting understanding of the UCoC, engaging in proactive work to prevent violations, developing principles for responsive work to UCoC violations, and supporting local enforcement structures. [..] 1.1 Translations of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines The original version of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines is in English. It will be translated into various languages used on Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Foundation will make their best effort to have accurate translations. If any difference arises in the meaning between the English version and a translation, decisions will be based on the English version. [..] 2. Preventive work This section aims to provide guidelines for Wikimedia communities and affiliated individuals to be aware of the UCoC, to fully understand and adhere to it. To that end, this section will detail recommendations for raising awareness of the UCoC, handling translations of the UCoC, and promoting voluntary adherence to the UCoC where appropriate or necessary. [..] 2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training The U4C Building Committee, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, will develop and implement training to provide a common understanding of the UCoC and skills for its implementation. It is recommended that relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial to providing a complete view of the UCoC. These trainings are intended for people who want to be part of UCoC enforcement processes, or those who want to be informed about the UCoC. The training will be set up in independent modules covering general information, identification of violations and support, and complex cases and appeals. After the first U4C is onboarded, it will be responsible for maintaining and updating the training modules as needed. [..] 3.1.1 Providing resources for processing cases Enforcement of the UCoC by local governance structures will be supported in multiple ways. Communities will be able to choose from different mechanisms or approaches based on several factors such as: the capacity of their enforcement structures, approach to governance, and community preferences. Some of these approaches can include: [..] 3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations [..] Off-wiki violations Handled by the U4C where no local governance structure (e.g. ArbCom) exists, or if the case is referred to them by the enforcement structure that would otherwise be responsible In some cases, it may be helpful to report the off-wiki violations to enforcement structures of the relevant off-wiki space. This does not preclude existing local and global enforcement mechanisms from acting on the reports [..] 3.3.3 Appeals [..] Enforcement structures will set standards for accepting and considering appeals based on relevant contextual information and mitigating factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: verifiability of the accusations, the length and effect of the sanction, and whether there is a suspicion of abuse of power or other systemic issues, and the likelihood of further violations. The acceptance of an appeal is not guaranteed. [..] 4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C) A new global committee called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) will be formed. This committee will be a co-equal body with other high-level decision-making bodies (e.g. ArbComs and AffCom). Its purpose is to serve as final recourse in the case of systemic failures by local groups to enforce the UCoC. The U4C's membership shall be reflective of the global and diverse makeup of our global community. [..] 4.2 Selection, membership, and roles Annual elections, organized by the global community, will select voting members. [..]

Proposed text 1. UCoC Enforcement Guidelines These Enforcement Guidelines describe how the community and Wikimedia Foundation achieve the goals of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This includes, among other topics: promoting understanding of the UCoC, engaging in proactive work to prevent violations, developing principles for responsive work to UCoC violations, and supporting local enforcement structures. [..] 1.1 Translations of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines The original version of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines is in English. It is translated into various languages used on Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Foundation makes its best effort to have accurate translations. If any difference arises in the meaning between the English version and a translation, decisions should be based on the English version. [..] 2. Preventive work This section aims to provide guidelines for Wikimedia communities and affiliated individuals to be aware of the UCoC, to fully understand and adhere to it. To that end, this section details recommendations for raising awareness of the UCoC, handling translations of the UCoC, and promoting voluntary adherence to the UCoC where appropriate or necessary. [..] 2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training The U4C Building Committee, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, develops and implements training to provide a common understanding of the UCoC and skills for its implementation. It is recommended that relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial to providing a complete view of the UCoC. These trainings are for people who want to be part of UCoC enforcement processes, or those who want to be informed about the UCoC. The training will be set up in independent modules covering general information, identification of violations and support, and complex cases and appeals. The U4C is responsible for maintaining and updating the training modules as needed. [..] 3.1.1 Providing resources for processing cases Enforcement of the UCoC by local governance structures is supported in multiple ways. Communities choose from different mechanisms or approaches based on several factors such as: the capacity of their enforcement structures, approach to governance, and community preferences. Some of these approaches can include: [..] 3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations [..] Off-wiki violations Handled by the U4C where no local governance structure (e.g. ArbCom) exists, or if the case is referred to them by the enforcement structure that would otherwise be responsible In some cases, it is helpful to report the off-wiki violations to enforcement structures of the relevant off-wiki space. This does not preclude existing local and global enforcement mechanisms from acting on the reports [..] 3.3.3 Appeals [..] Enforcement structures set standards for accepting and considering appeals based on relevant contextual information and mitigating factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: verifiability of the accusations, the length and effect of the sanction, and whether there is a suspicion of abuse of power or other systemic issues, and the likelihood of further violations. The acceptance of an appeal is not guaranteed. [..] 4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C) The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a co-equal body with other high-level decision-making bodies (e.g. ArbComs and AffCom). Its purpose is to serve as final recourse in the case of systemic failures by local groups to enforce the UCoC. The U4C's membership shall be reflective of the global and diverse makeup of our global community. [..] 4.2 Selection, membership, and roles Annual elections, organized by the global community, will select up to 16 voting members. [..]

Discussion (language)

• For "The Wikimedia Foundation makes their best effort" (1.1), I think that it should either be "The Wikimedia Foundation makes its best effort" or "The Wikimedia Foundation make their best effort". Unless the intention is to use a singular they for the WMF? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've incorporated this change into the proposal. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  Wiktionary tells me that it should generally be plural. Sorry about that! Sdrqaz (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/28456722 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• "An additional option" in the charter section was removed, but this was not highlighted in the diff I think ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I just highlighted it. Thanks for catching it. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would suggest to replace " should be based" with " must be based". This is no suggestion. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Good suggestion. Thanks. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

13. U4C takes responsibility for EG review and UCoC training

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 1.1 Translations of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines The original version of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines is in English. It will be translated into various languages used on Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Foundation will make their best effort to have accurate translations. If any difference arises in the meaning between the English version and a translation, decisions will be based on the English version. 1.2 Review of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Based on the Board of Trustees' recommendation, one year after the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines, the Wikimedia Foundation will host a community consultation and review of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and UCoC. [..] 2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training The U4C Building Committee, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, will develop and implement training to provide a common understanding of the UCoC and skills for its implementation. It is recommended that relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial to providing a complete view of the UCoC.

Proposed text 1.1 Translations of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines The original version of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines is in English. It will be translated into various languages used on Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Foundation will make their best effort to have accurate translations. If any difference arises in the meaning between the English version and a translation, decisions by the U4C will be based on the English version. 1.2 Review of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee leads annual reviews of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. [..] 2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training The U4C, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, will develop and implement training to provide a common understanding of the UCoC and skills for its implementation. It is recommended that relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: Affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other Advanced Rights Holders, T&S and legal, and others as it deems beneficial to providing a complete view of the UCoC.

14. Reduce translations support from requirement to recommendation

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 3.1 Principles for filing and processing of UCoC violations The following principles are standards for reporting systems across the Movement. Reports: [..] Resources for translation must be provided by the Wikimedia Foundation when reports are provided in languages that designated individuals are not proficient

Proposed text 3.1 Principles for filing and processing of UCoC violations The following principles are standards for reporting systems across the Movement. Reports: [..] Where possible and necessary, the Wikimedia Foundation will provide translation resources for reports

15. Remove language around referrals

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations [..] Off-wiki violations Handled by the U4C where no local governance structure (e.g. ArbCom) exists, or if the case is referred to them by the enforcement structure that would otherwise be responsible In some cases, it may be helpful to report the off-wiki violations to enforcement structures of the relevant off-wiki space. This does not preclude existing local and global enforcement mechanisms from acting on the reports Violations at in-person events and spaces Existing enforcement structures often provide rules of behavior and enforcement in off-wiki spaces. These include friendly space policies and conference rules Enforcement structures handling these cases can refer them to the U4C In instances of events hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety provides event policy enforcement [..]

Proposed text 3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations [..] Off-wiki violations Handled by the U4C where no local governance structure (e.g. ArbCom) exists In some cases, it may be helpful to report the off-wiki violations to enforcement structures of the relevant off-wiki space. This does not preclude existing local and global enforcement mechanisms from acting on the reports Violations at in-person events and spaces Existing enforcement structures often provide rules of behavior and enforcement in off-wiki spaces. These include friendly space policies and conference rules In instances of events hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety provides event policy enforcement [..]

Discussion (referrals)

• Why is this being removed? Referrals are still mentioned in 3.9.1 and 3.1.2. I don't think that referrals is a bad idea: maybe the enforcement structure does not have enough capacity or feels that the case is too complex, or maybe it has cross-wiki elements. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

16. Deduplicate language from the EG and the Charter

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C) [..] The U4C's membership shall be reflective of the global and diverse makeup of our global community. 4.1 Purpose and scope [..] The U4C will not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC, or its enforcement. The U4C may delegate its final decision making authority except in instances of severe systemic issues. The U4C's responsibilities are explained in the context of other enforcement structures in 3.1.2. 4.2 Selection, membership, and roles Annual elections, organized by the global community, will select voting members. Candidates may be any community member who must also: Meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to nonpublic personal data and confirm in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria Not be currently sanctioned in any Wikimedia project or have an event ban Comply with the UCoC Meet any other eligibility requirements determined during the election process In exceptional circumstances, the U4C may call interim elections, if it determines that resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional members. Elections will be in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections. Individual members of the U4C do not have to resign from other positions (e.g. 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. Members of the U4C will sign the Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy to provide them access to nonpublic information. The U4C Building Committee should decide on appropriate terms for U4C members. The U4C may form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles as appropriate. The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members to the U4C and will provide support staff as desired and appropriate. 4.3 Procedures The U4C will decide on how often it will convene and on other operating procedures. The U4C may create or modify their procedures as long as it is within their scope. Whenever appropriate, the Committee should invite community feedback on intended changes prior to implementing them.

Proposed text 4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C) [..] 4.1 Purpose and scope [..] The U4C will not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC, or its enforcement. The U4C's responsibilities are explained in the context of other enforcement structures in 3.1.2. 4.2 Selection, membership, and roles Annual elections, organized by the global community, will select voting members. In exceptional circumstances, the U4C may call interim elections, if it determines that resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional members. Elections will be in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections. The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members to the U4C and will provide support staff as desired and appropriate.

Charter

Current text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. [..] 4. Tasks 4.1. UCoC and Enforcement Training Resources The U4C will oversee the creation and maintenance of training resources, as well as coordinating with the Wikimedia Foundation on translation of such training resources. Three basic training modules shall cover as mandated in the enforcement guidelines will include: Orientation Identification and reporting Complex cases and appeals These modules will be publicly accessible, on platforms such as on learn.wiki, and must be translated in cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation into as many languages as possible. The list or number of languages will be determined by the U4C. Alongside providing training modules, the U4C can explore and support other ways of training, collaborating with various community stakeholders such as but not limited to the Wikimedia Foundation and affiliates.

Proposed text The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), reflective of the diverse makeup of our global community, is an enforcement structure dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. [..] 4. Tasks 4.1. UCoC and Enforcement Training Resources The U4C will oversee the creation and maintenance of training resources, as well as coordinating with the Wikimedia Foundation on translation of such training resources. Alongside providing training modules as mandated by the Enforcement Guidelines, the U4C can explore and support other ways of training, collaborating with various community stakeholders such as but not limited to the Wikimedia Foundation and affiliates.

17. Remove historical U4CBC language and section from both documents

Enforcement Guidelines

Current text 4.5 U4C Building Committee Following ratification of the UCoC enforcement guidelines, the Wikimedia Foundation will facilitate a Building Committee to: Determine the procedures, policy, and use of precedent of the U4C Draft the remainder of the U4C process Designate any other logistics necessary to establish the U4C Help facilitate the initial election procedures for the U4C The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate staff or board members, and Wikimedia Foundation staff. Members will be selected by the Vice President of Community Resilience and Sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteer members for the committee should be respected community members. Members shall reflect the diverse perspectives of the movement's enforcement processes with experience in things such as, but not limited to: policy drafting, involvement in and awareness of the application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects, and participatory decision making. Its members shall reflect the diversity of the movement, such as but not limited to: languages spoken, gender, age, geography, and project type. The work of the U4C Building Committee will be ratified either by the Global Council or by a community process similar to the ratification of this document. Following the establishment of the U4C through the work of this Building Committee, the Building Committee should dissolve.

Proposed text (whole section removed)