Proposed changes to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the U4C Charter are open for review through the end of day on Sunday, 1st March 2026. Please comment on proposals, draft additional proposals, and/or provide feedback as you see fit.
Sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team, or, when appropriate, other professionals who can appropriately evaluate the merit of the threats
[..]
Handled by the Affiliations Committee or equivalent body
[..]
Handled by the Technical Code of Conduct Committee
[..]
UCoC violations that happen across multiple wikis: Handled by global sysops and stewards and the bodies that handle single-wiki UCoC violations or handled by the U4C where they do not conflict with these guidelines
[..]
3.3.3 Appeals
[..]
Appeals are not possible against certain decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department. However, some Wikimedia Foundation office actions and decisions are reviewable by the Case Review Committee.
UCoC violations that happen across multiple wikis: Handled by global sysops and stewards and the bodies that handle single-wiki UCoC violations or handled by the U4C where they do not conflict with these guidelines
[..]
3.3.3 Appeals
[..]
Appeals are not possible against certain decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department. However, some Wikimedia Foundation office actions and decisions are reviewable by the Case Review Committee.
Adding links is sensible, but please check with the Foundation that these links are stable. Alternatively, maybe we could add a clause that says updating these links doesn't require community approval. I don't want us to be stuck going through a massive review process every time those pages are moved. Toadspike[Talk]19:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Violations involving the nonconsensual disclosure of personally identifiable information
[..]
Proposed text
3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations
[..]
Violations involving the nonconsensual disclosure of personal data
[..]
Current text
Glossary
[..]
Personally identifiable information
is any data that could potentially identify a specific individual. Any information that can be used to distinguish one person from another and can be used to deanonymize previously anonymous data is considered PII.
[..]
Proposed text
Glossary
[..]
Personal data
is any data that could potentially identify a specific individual. Any information that can be used to distinguish one person from another and can be used to deanonymize previously anonymous data is considered personal data.
[..]
Charter
Current text
3.2. Conduct of U4C members
[..]
Maintain the confidentiality of private information shared with the U4C, including private correspondence and non-public personal information.
[..]
Proposed text
3.2. Conduct of U4C members
[..]
Maintain the confidentiality of private information shared with the U4C, including private correspondence and non-public personal data.
What is the idea behind this change? If the definition of the term continues to be "any data that could potentially identify a specific individual", I find "Personally identifiable information" to be significantly clearer. All the data I generate is personal, but much of it is not personally identifiable. Toadspike[Talk]19:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that page and 3.2 use "nonpublic personal data", which is much more specific. Let's give some examples: A common-sense reading says my contribution history or the time at which I publish this edit is "personal data", since it is data I (personally) generated. All of that may be disclosed by anyone to anyone else without my consent (though I'm guessing the ToU says that by using this website I've consented to the disclosure of such data). Sharing a link to my contribution history or performing the kind of behavioral analysis common in sockpuppet investigations shouldn't be grounds for a U4C enforcement action. This problem disappears if we stick with "personally identifiable information". Alternatively, the proposal for 3.1.2 can be updated in to include the word "nonpublic" as well. Toadspike[Talk]17:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike:en:Personal data does not mean "data generated by a person". I do not completely understand how linking an already public contribution history could be a considered a violation (or a disclosure!). Doesn't the word disclosure imply that an information was not previously public? --Civvì (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the enwiki page supports your claim. It says that definitions of the term vary widely, and it includes as an example that one's favorite color is considered "personal data" in the EU. I do not see how one's contribution history, which can capture thousands of hours of work and far more information on personal interests and preferences than a single color, is universally and categorically not personal data.
As for the actual topic at hand, there are two problems here: the definition of "personal data" and the definition of "disclosure".
1. Using behavioral analysis, contribution histories "can be used to distinguish one person from another", and in some cases can even "deanonymize previously anonymous data" (e.g. by linking to an IP address). So, yes, this is personal data. It is not nonpublic personal data, which is why I'd prefer the word "nonpublic" be added before each use of the term "personal data", as done throughout the ANPDP.
2. Yes, "disclosure" implies the revealing of previously secret information. However, publicizing information that is theoretically already public, yet not easily found (e.g. a clean start's previous account or an obscure log entry), can in colloquial use also be considered a "disclosure". This ambiguity can also be resolved by adding the word "nonpublic" before "personal data".
All of my concerns can be resolved with the addition of one word, "nonpublic", which is already used in other documents approved by WMF Legal. Toadspike[Talk]10:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee leads annual reviews of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines.
Proposed text
1. UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
[..]
Current text
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.
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.
The U4C:
Handles complaints and appeals in the circumstances outlined in the Enforcement Guidelines
Performs any investigations necessary to resolve said complaints and appeals
Provide resources for communities on UCoC best practices, such as mandatory training material and other resources as needed
Provides a final interpretation of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC if the need arises, in collaboration with community members and enforcement structures
Monitors and assesses the effectiveness of UCoC enforcement, and provides recommendations for improvement
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 up to 16 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.
4.3 Policy and precedent
The U4C does not create new policy and may not amend or change the UCoC. The U4C instead applies and enforces the UCoC as defined by its scope.
As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions will be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context.
Proposed text
3. 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.
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.
Proposed text
Glossary
High-level decision-making body
A group (e.g. U4C, ArbCom, AffCom) or the 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.
[..]
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, Wikimedia Foundation 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.
[..]
[..]
Except in instances of systemic failures, the U4C will not have jurisdiction to enforce the UCoC when Stewards or a high-level decision-making body is able to (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, Technical Spaces Code of Conduct Committee), 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.
[..]]
I am having difficulty parsing the proposed text ("A group (e.g. U4C, ArbCom, AffCom) or the Stewards beyond which there can be no appeal of UCoC enforcement."). If the goal is to move the Stewards out of the scope of "group", perhaps consider something like "Stewards and any group (e.g. U4C, ArbCom, AffCom) beyond which there can be no appeal of UCoC enforcement." Best, KevinL (aka L235·t) 03:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The change makes sense, but the wording could be cleaner. The proposal for 4.2.1 is ungrammatical: "Stewards or a high-level decision-making body is" should use "are", since "Stewards" is plural; though this then no longer agrees with "a high-level decision-making body", which is singular, since those bodies are made up of many people I think use of the plural form of "be" would be acceptable. Toadspike[Talk]10:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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. The committee provides quality assurance of UCoC-related training materials, oversees the annual UCoC, Enforcement Guidelines (EG), and U4C charter community review, and conducts the annual elections for members of the U4C as well as conducting any special elections that may occur.
[..]
Proposed text
[..]
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. The committee provides quality assurance of UCoC-related training materials, oversees the recurring UCoC, Enforcement Guidelines (EG), and U4C charter community review, and conducts the annual elections for members of the U4C as well as conducting any special elections that may occur.
[..]
Current text
1. Purpose and Scope
[..]
Suggesting suitable changes to the UCoC and the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines for the Wikimedia Foundation and the community to consider as part of the UCoC annual review.
[..]
Proposed text
1. Purpose and Scope
[..]
Suggesting suitable changes to the UCoC and the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines for the Wikimedia Foundation and the community to consider as part of the UCoC recurring review.
[..]
Current text
3. Internal Procedures
[..]
3.1. Internal Policy and Precedent
[..]
The U4C may, however, suggest changes to the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines for the Wikimedia Foundation and the community to consider as part of the annual review process organized by the U4C.
[..]
Proposed text
3. Internal Procedures
[..]
3.1. Internal Policy and Precedent
[..]
The U4C may, however, suggest changes to the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines for the Wikimedia Foundation and the community to consider as part of the recurring review process organized by the U4C.
[..]
Current text
4.3. UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines - Review and Changes
4.3.1. UCoC monitoring
The U4C shall closely monitor the Foundation safety perception surveys, its own caseload trends, and feedback from community self-governance processes to identify challenges to the effective self-governance of communities to enforce the UCoC. Concerns identified shall be publicly documented on the U4C’s noticeboard, addressed as merited, or tabled during the annual UCoC & EG review.
Preceding the annual review, the U4C will complete the following:
[..]
Open a comment page on Meta-wiki available for everyone. It contains a section for any community member to report matters about how the U4C, the EG and the UCoC work as enforced. The comment page is linked in U4C communications about the annual review. The U4C shall look into comments and questions placed on that page, but is not obligated to follow-up in depth.
The above mentioned Meta-wiki comment page contains a second dedicated section allowing community members to share ideas for improvement and amendments. This is helpful to collect ideas from individuals and aims to be open to all voices in the community. U4C is required to read and decide if they want to adopt these ideas when drafting a proposal during the annual process.
[..]
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:
[..]
Proposed text
4.3. UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines - Review and Changes
4.3.1. UCoC monitoring
The U4C shall closely monitor the Foundation safety perception surveys, its own caseload trends, and feedback from community self-governance processes to identify challenges to the effective self-governance of communities to enforce the UCoC. Concerns identified shall be publicly documented on the U4C’s noticeboard, addressed as merited, or tabled during the recurring UCoC & EG review.
Preceding the recurring review, the U4C will complete the following:
[..]
Open a comment page on Meta-wiki available for everyone. It contains a section for any community member to report matters about how the U4C, the EG and the UCoC work as enforced. The comment page is linked in U4C communications about the review. The U4C shall look into comments and questions placed on that page, but is not obligated to follow-up in depth.
The above mentioned Meta-wiki comment page contains a second dedicated section allowing community members to share ideas for improvement and amendments. This is helpful to collect ideas from individuals and aims to be open to all voices in the community. U4C is required to read and decide if they want to adopt these ideas when drafting a proposal during the process.
[..]
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 review of the UCoC, the Enforcement Guidelines and the Charter. It comprises at least:
Here's another point where I'd like to hear the U4C's justification. Is an annual review too frequent? Do you not anticipate having to make further changes in the future? The reviews up till now, including this one, have been jam-packed with changes, so this comes as something of a surprise. If the goal is simply more scheduling flexibility, I'd point out that "annual" is not very strict, and delaying or bringing the review forward by a few months, as needed by the Board this time, is probably allowed under the current wording. Toadspike[Talk]19:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After doing this for two years, the intention is to have the flexibility of not having to deal with all the documents every year, but perhaps to stagger them and deal with each document every two years. For example, one year UCoC and one year EG+Charter. This does not mean that it has to be this way, but if the number of committee members does not increase, ways must be found to better distribute the workload (which is quite intense for the annual review). --Civvì (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toadspike, another reason is that this year's proposals are mostly based on formal reasons and the proposals are getting less, as we can see on the proposal pages. Besides this proposal, only the 55 % proposal in number 6 also changes the content significantly. So, beyond the workload argument, there is also a (waning) demand argument. Ghilt (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, this will cause problems. 60% is already too low for such a critical responsibility. We have an example of a candidate who got around 55% in U4C elections but got 25% in the steward elections that followed. An endorsement mechanism may solve the "low mean" problem; endorsements from known global community members. But lowering the threshold will cause problems. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the only reasons for this proposal are 8 empty seats (= 50% of seats) and candidates from the southern hemisphere have not been getting enough support to be elected. The dewiki arbcom has been working with 50 % votes for 19 years, and the dewiki community has shown to be able to distinguish between electable and unelectable candidates regardless of the percentage. Having served there for 12 years, imo there hasn't been a member that was impossible to work with (with one exception on undeclarated extreme political activism), and diversity adds perspectives. --Ghilt (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can use the rule of enwiki ArbCom: The candidate must have 50% or higher of votes, but candidates with less than 60% support will only serve one year term.--GZWDer (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the desire for the U4C to have more elected members to more easily meet its quorum, I believe that a candidate that receives only 55% of the vote (i.e., only 1.22x as many people support as oppose) does not meet the trust requirements for a role of this importance. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t) 03:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[..]
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, Wikimedia Foundation 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.
[..]
[..]
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, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, Technical Spaces 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.
[..]
