Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2026/UCoC

Translate this page

This page is dedicated to collect and discuss potential changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). Everyone is invited to comment or make suggestions on the review subpages.

Proposed changes

Instructions: Please propose any changes as simply as possible and with your signature. You may propose and comment in any language. Longer thoughts or explanations can be included as a reply.

Copy editing still needed

I have posted requests like this since the beginning of the UCOC process, mostly to no avail, so I'll keep this brief. Copy editing is needed to make these documents clear, grammatical, and unambiguous. I will provide just two examples, since offering specific suggestions and edits in the past has mostly been rejected.
Example 1: The following excerpt from the UCOC lacks parallel structure:

Ethnic groups may use a specific name to describe themselves, rather than the name historically used by others; (a sentence)

People may have names that use letters, sounds, or words from their language which may be unfamiliar to you; (a sentence)

People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns; (not a sentence)

People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves (a sentence; also, terminal punctuation is missing, since the above items use semicolons)

Example 2: The following excerpt from the UCOC lacks parallel structure:

Mentorship and coaching: Helping newcomers to find their way and acquire essential skills. (a non-sentence verb clause ending in a period, unlike the semicolons used above)

Looking out for fellow contributors: Lend them a hand when they need support, and speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct. (a sentence written in the imperative mood and ending in a period, unlike the semicolons used above)

Recognize and credit the work done by contributors: Thank them for their help and work. Appreciate their efforts and give credit where it is due. (a sentence written in the imperative mood and ending in a period, unlike the semicolons used above)

There is plenty more, but I will not tilt at all of the windmills. I hope that you will find someone who is willing and able to finally clean up the language used in these documents. Jonesey95 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Translation issues

Interpretation issue

There is a sentence in sect. 3.1 related to the definition of doxing that, if translated into Italian, may lead to an ambiguous identification on the type of information that should not be disclosed. The sentence is:

or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects

In Italian, this sentence could be interpreted both as "you cannot share outside the projects what an user does on Wikimedia" and "you cannot share what an user is doing on Wikimedia besides the (Wikimedia) projects". The resulting meaning is pretty different. The question is: what is the correct interpretation? This would help translating this sentence properly, so that it wouldn't sound ambiguous.--Superspritz ^{tell me} 15:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content

2 – Expected behaviour

2.1 – Mutual respect

Let's make UCoC's Gender Identity Language and Culture Neutral

Replace:

People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns;

With:

People may use specific names, forms of address, or other linguistic identifiers to describe their sexual orientation or gender identity;

Motivation

The current instruction, though well-intentioned, is linguistically and culturally specific to Anglophone contexts, risking being unclear, incomplete or even exclusionary for a significant portion of our global, linguistically diverse community. In many widely spoken languages (e.g., Spanish, Hindi-Urdu, Bengali, French, Italian and many more), gender and identity are expressed through pervasive grammatical systems (verb conjugations, adjective endings, noun forms, honorifics, etc.), not solely or primarily through a distinct set of pronouns. For these languages, the current guidelines' specific mention of "pronouns" does not necessarily provide a directly applicable or culturally resonant guidance.

By focusing on "pronouns," the policy seems to suggest that respect for gender identity is primarily about word substitution. I believe this ignores the structures of gendered languages and may feel alienating to the respective language communities, whose efforts to define ways toward more respectful language for different identities are regularly carried out in local projects. To make this guideline truly universal, it should focus solely on the underlying principle (namely, respecting the linguistic identifiers a person chooses) rather than listing examples from a single language (such as pronouns in English).

Cheers,—super n∇bl∇(🪰 msg) 22:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3 – Unacceptable behaviour

3.1 – Harassment

Clarify and reword the Doxing provision

The current text states:

Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.

This poses two issues:

No self-disclosure exception. On several Wikimedia projects (including de.wikipedia, en.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, it.wikipedia) posting personal information is not treated as doxxing if the contributor has voluntarily disclosed or linked that information on-wiki. For example, en:WP:DOX says: "Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". Once a contributor discloses their name or other data on a Wikimedia project, mentioning that information no longer constitutes doxxing, irrespective of their consent to such mention. This exception is longstanding and widely relied upon. So, as currently worded, the UCoC provision appears to prohibit conduct that is explicitly permitted on major projects, which is incompatible with the UCoC's stated purpose of defining minimum standards.
Overbreadth of the "off-wiki activity" clause. The phrase "sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is extremely broad as written and risks encompassing academic or journalistic discussion of Wikimedia governance, off-wiki commentary linking to public diffs or discussions, legitimate criticism of editorial conduct, etc. What we do not want users to do is (for example) contacting another user's employer or spouse to tell them "Are you aware of what they do on WP? They are called user:Whatever and this is what they've written". Without an element of harassment, intimidation or harm, the current text goes well beyond doxxing. So we should rephrase the sentence to avoid the risk of overreach, and possibly also add "usernames" to the parenthetical list of private information that should not be shared.

Therefore, I'd suggest to replace the current doxxing clause with the following:

Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): (a) sharing another contributor's personal information (such as real name, usernames, place of employment, physical or email address), unless they have voluntarily posted or linked to it on a Wikimedia project, whether it is shared on Wikimedia projects or elsewhere; or (b) sharing information about another contributor's Wikimedia activity outside the projects with the intent of harassing, intimidating or harming.

--Gitz6666 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what is solution, but as of now, if User:UniqueUsername exists and their public Twitter profile @UniqueUsername has tweets that I mention, I am liable for doxing in a way that doesn’t reject modern expectations of privacy. Shushugah (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment

Administrators may not use power to require editors to accept a topic ban as a pre-requisite in order to be unblocked if by doing so it removes or unbalances sides in a discussion. Administrators may not police unblock requests or the UTRS system to deny editors that are involved with an article that they are following if by doing so it removes or unbalances sides in a discussion.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by ~2026-64377-0 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence

Abuse of power

If suspected meat puppets are contributing in a good faith, constructive, non-damaging manner that allows for the betterment of the project, they may not be blocked or banned simply for being a suspected meat puppet if it artificially imbalances or removes the majority of one side of an argument or discussion thereby using process to silence one side of a disagreement.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by ~2026-64377-0 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References