Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/EG review 2025

Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

• Coordinating Committee (U4C)
• U4C Announcements
• Training modules
• Cases
• Annual review
• Elections

This page is dedicated to collect and discuss potential changes to the UCoC enforcement guidelines. 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.

• Remove the U4CBC section (and any mentions of it elsewhere). From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Align the Charter and Enforcement Guidelines: no blocks/bans in the past year or no current ones? From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Allow for referrals from communities and/or high-level decision making bodies. From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Charter allows for referrals by the Foundation and high-level decision making bodies for systemic failures, but it seems silly to limit referrals to only those categories. The Charter also requires the U4C to at least open an investigation in those referrals. I do not think that is necessary for non-systemic failure referrals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Clarify if ArbComs must be NDA (sign the ANPDP) in order to be considered high-level decision making bodies. From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  This was brought up by a different U4C member but just to put the conflict out there more explicitly I will copy their comments anonymously given that I don't think I can publicly reveal for them that they said it "Clarify the consistency under "3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations" "local governance structure (e.g. ArbCom)" versus "NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body" in the charter." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Why do you want to remove any mention of the U4CBC ("and any mentions of it elsewhere") ? Is it to erase the memories ? The rules of the U4C have been set up first by this Committee, it did not come from nowhere and it was a collective work that started in Phase 2 drafting committee.

So, in order to be faithful to history, I ask that the mentions of the U4CBC are not removed everywhere, as you demand, but kept at least in following sentences :

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee : "defined in the Charter which was developed by a Building Committee" (keep the link to the U4CBC page).

2. Elections and Terms

2.4. Elections - "For the first election, the U4C Building Committee (U4CBC) will take the place of the U4C."

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 possible."

If there is a new version of the Charter, please put the corresponding dates and write the sentences at the past. Waltercolor (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Waltercolor the charter "details the scope and purpose of the U4C, its selection, membership roles, basic procedures, as well as policies and precedent." It does not record the history of the U4C, the UCoC, or the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. The U4CBC no longer exists and there is no mechanism for a new U4CBC to exist. Instead the U4CBC's history is archived elsewhere including Universal Code of Conduct/Project and, if this change is proposed an adopted, the edit history of the charter itself. It doesn't also need continue to be int he document itself and keeping lines like "For the first election..." requires someone to know whether or not there has been a first election. The U4C and indeed the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines are novel enough for even highly aware people that we should not cause further confusion by preserving no longer useful information when we have a method to amend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I don't agreee with you and frankly speaking, I don't find your arguments relevant. What we need is not just "the U4CBC's history archived elsewhere including Universal Code of Conduct/Project and, if this change is proposed an adopted, the edit history of the charter itself". The Charter is a binding text, and each and all the adopted versions should be available easily, and not just as wiki diffs or lost in a general history of the Code. I really question your "method to amend". They are formal ways to amend a text, by relating to and preserve all previous versions, that is commonly used for legal texts in the world, and this is the method that should be used for establishing successive versions of the Charter. Be formal, don't underestimate people by thinking that for them, a "no longer in use" information is a "no longer useful" one. Making a clear history of the versions, (not just diffs on meta, sorry), helps people to check what exactly has been implemented or suppressed, and how and why the Charter evolves. It also helps lawyers and researchers around the world to understand how the U4C enacts. I'm really waiting for a serious and documented approach of the amendments and not just a piling up of the versions without structuring the access to the different versions. Waltercolor (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The U4C discussed this, among other things, this past week. And we agree (including me) that it would be useful to have a page "History of the UCoC and U4C". This would complement the edit history; many researchers already have used edit histories to do serious research of Wikipedia, articles and policies, and the Wikimedia movement more generally so this is not some obscure place for them to look. Of course any changes to the Enforcement Guidelines and Charter (and hopefully the UCoC itself) will need to be approved by the community and so if the community agrees with your approach (or more accurately does not agree with the approach of replacing no longer needed text) that is the one we will take. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Incorporate the right to be heard into section 3.3.1 Fairness in process. We need to protect community members from false accusations, and decision-making bodies from incorrect decisions. The right to be heard is an age-old procedural principle that we should follow as well. --Gnom (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Gnom can you offer specific suggestions for changes to the current wording about right to be heard? Right to be heard was a large piece of feedback from the failed EG to the successful EG. The current wording is intended to be supportive of the right to be heard, while also acknowledging that in certain cases (e.g. long term abuse) it may not be necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your helpful direct response, @Barkeep49. Just to be clear, we are both talking about the second paragraph in section 3.3.1 Fairness in process, is that correct? I am more than happy to directly address the relevant language, and propose specific improvements. Gnom (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, thank you. As a starting point, let's use the following hypothetical case:

  A participant at an international Wikimedia conference is told by the organising team that they have violated to conference's code of conduct and that they are barred from further participation in the conference. Asking the organising team about how they might have violated the conference's code of conduct, they are not given an answer. Instead, they are told to leave the conference venue immediately and not return for the remainder of the conference. The organising team also states that the conference participant may also be barred from participating in any Wikimedia conferences in the future. The conference participant feels helpless as they have no means of appealing against the decision due to not knowing what they are being accused of. When the conference participant points the organising team to the (current) UCoC enforcement guidelines, the organising team responds only that they will not provide any details about the case 'to protect the privacy and safety of the other conference participants'.

  Imagine if this happened to you at a Wikimedia conference. This case demonstrates a deeply unjust situation that is possible under the current enforcement guidelines. They violate the centuries-old principle of the right to be heard (audiatur et altera pars in Latin).

  My proposal for an amendment to fix this flaw in the enforcement guidelines would be as follows:

  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 for interim measures, and in cases of spam, trolling and long-term abuse on the projects.

  I am happy to discuss other solutions to the above case, or any other exceptions that we need to include without unduly limiting the right to be heard. Gnom (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for offering that language; we will discuss it. I have to tell you speaking only for myself and knowing some of the safety incidents that happen at live meetings, the scenario you that you offered strikes me as potentially appropriate. If the person being kicked out has done (or believed to have done) certain kinds of harassment or violence having the participant be mad at the organizing committee rather than the person who reported them strikes me as a net positive. We're not talking about people's literal physical safety in this scenario as opposed to psychological safety (harassment on the internet). This person would likely be able to appeal to someone (perhaps the U4C) who could then learn the evidence and assess if the actions were or were not reasonable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your lightning fast response, @Barkeep49! Please imagine yourself being barred from any Wikimedia conference for the rest of your life because of a potentially false accusation without having even the slightest idea what you might have done wrong. Is this really what we want? You are also saying that an appeals body "could then learn the evidence and assess if the actions were or were not reasonable" – well, what if the "evidence" is a false accusation? This is why the principle of the right to be heard is such a valued social achievement. Gnom (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  The entire enforcement guideline is predicated on the belief that people are going to do their best and be honest with their enforcement. If a single uncorroborated accusation is enough to cause someone to be barred from all Wikimedia conferences for life (including after appeal), I don't think a simple response from the alleged perpetrator is going to convince those in power to act otherwise and we have broader problems. If people are going to act irresponsibly and unreasonably in enforcing the guidelines, a change from the current wording to your proposal won't (in my mind) stop them while it would mean those who are inclined to be honest brokers might have to (in this scenario) put conference attendees in physical risk (either by taking no action because they don't want to reveal the allegation or by taking action with the right to respond). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are right in saying that we should of course assume that the staff and community members carrying out the enforcement will do their best to do a great job. But the right to be heard is not just important in those situations where there is just 'a single uncorroborated accusation', but also in other scenarios where the perspective of the accused is essential. Also, my proposal is to allow interim decisions without hearing everyone first. Gnom (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hello Gnom, as you know, we both are strong proponents of the right to be heard. It is due process. But there are situations, e.g. non-public physical threats or emergency situations, where referring to an incident may disclose the origin of the accusations and escalate the situation or delay help, respectively. We are currently discussing when not to hear an accused person. I'd love to hear your ideas. Ghilt (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hello Ghilt, in situations where the right to be heard might delay help, I would say that it is okay to put in place interim measures first (see my proposed wording above). Happy to discuss other scenarios where you think that 'disclosing the accusation' (i.e. granting the right to be heard) would be problematic. Gnom (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'd like to get back at the first example provided: someone who makes off-wiki-threats of physical consequences in real life. Asking that person about an offline incident (sometimes only 2 people know about) endangers the victim by provoking execution of the threat as a revenge. Ghilt (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  My solution to this, again, would be to include an exception for interim measures before the right to be heard is granted at a later stage, e.g. after a case like this one has been handed over to the police. Gnom (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  If we gave it to the police, the victim would be exposed. Normally, a victim that hasn't called the police before will not want the police to be involved at a later stage for this reason (even though we would recommend it). And for a threat, a prison sentence would be very short (if at all) and the revenge would follow after that. This does not seem to solve the problem of victim protection from physical harm. Especially not in cases where henchmen are involved. --Ghilt (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Wow, this sounds like a very extreme case. Happy to help you carve out a special exception for this that is sufficiently narrow. Gnom (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  We do receive ugly stuff and that's part of the job. It mirrors human behaviour in real life. But we are not a court, and all we can do to people with criminal behaviour is take away editing rights in Wikimedia projects and recommend relevant authorities to the victims. So, as you know, in western law, there is an absolute right to be heard, but in a court, the possible consequences are so very much bigger than loosing editing rights for Wikimedia projects. And, the absolute right to be heard and the revealing of the accuser's name is one cause for not reporting incidents (underreporting), especially in situations with shame or with threats. Anyhow, you - and everyone else - are dearly encouraged to make a suggestion. Ghilt (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, maybe like this:

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 for interim measures, and in cases of spam, trolling, and long-term abuse on the projects, as well as where doing so would pose a risk for the physical safety of a party..

What do you think? You are right that underreporting is an issue, but we also have to address the risk of false accusations. --Gnom (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

One set of feedback we have is that the EG is too long and too lawyerly already. What do you think "or interim measures, and in cases of spam, trolling, and long-term abuse on the projects, as well as where doing so would pose a risk for the physical safety of a party." accomplishes that the much shorter "to protect privacy and safety" does not? Because I'm not seeing any large difference. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Happy to phrase this in a simpler way, but "to protect privacy and safety" is just too broad. It can be applied to basically every single case, and we do not want that. Simple bullet points may help:

This may be limited to protect privacy and safety in the following cases:

• for interim measures,
• in cases of spam, trolling, and long-term abuse on the projects,
• where doing so would pose a risk for the physical safety of a party.

Gnom (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This does not cover the previously mentioned shame-related issues yet. I am also thinking about other rare but realistic scenarios (especially the 'low risk & high impact'). Ghilt (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I would not think that the risk of someone being 'shamed' could justify not granting the right to be heard. But maybe I am not understanding the scenario that you are thinking about. Gnom (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about sexual harassment and stalking, but additionally, i am currently researching reasons for underreporting. Ghilt (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gnom: I think that the goal of "protect community members from false accusations, and decision-making bodies from incorrect decisions" is already included in the request of fair processes. The moment we define a closed list of cases is the moment we create loopholes in the whole and basically invite what on enwiki is called Wikilawyering (but you may also be familiar with the subtelties of "Inventa lege, inventa fraude"). That's why I would prefer guidelines to be based on "principles" and not going so much into the description of "facti species". The same section (3.3 Principles and recommendations for enforcement structures) describes the right to appeal, which was also not (always) guaranteed in the past. --Civvì (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Not granting the right to be heard must remain the exception to ensure trust in our decision-making processes, and we need to define when this exception can be applied. There is no risk of wikilawyering. When you refer to the right to appeal – how can someone appeal a decision when they do not know what they are being accused of? Gnom (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)