Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Vote results

This report covers the vote to ratify the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). This vote, held January 16 - February 2, 2024, was mandated by the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct, which were ratified in 2023.

Number of eligible voters who participated	1746
Voters who support the Charter	1249
Voters who did not support the Charter	420
Voters who did not indicate a choice	69
Number of comments received	257

This resulted in a 74.84% support margin to ratify the U4C Charter. Texts of voting materials, ballots, and the draft Charter itself were offered in 22 languages.

Voting Statistics

Voters from 107 “home” wikis participated (see note). Voters represented 74 of Wikimedia’s project languages, with some voters representing non-language-based projects such as Commons and Wikidata (labeled “multiple” in chart below).

English: 692 (38.0%)
German: 263 (14.4%)
French: 135 (7.4%)
Multiple: 106 (5.8%)
Italian: 67 (3.7%)
Russian: 61 (3.3%)
Spanish: 57 (3.1%)
Chinese: 49 (2.7%)
Japanese: 38 (2.1%)
Polish: 37 (2.0%)
Turkish: 26 (1.4%)
Czech: 21 (1.2%)
Ukrainian: 20 (1.1%)
Korean: 19 (1.0%)
Dutch: 19 (1.0%)
Other languages: 211 (11.6%)

Note: SecurePoll counts a contributor’s home wiki as the first wiki they edited; this may not accurately reflect the project they contribute to most frequently.

Voter Comments

257 voters left comments through the comment field of the ballot. These comments covered a range of concerns and sentiments, some positive and some critical. Voter comments have been categorized and summarized below; see this page for a full list of the comments received. Text submitted in languages other than English has been machine-translated.

General Negative: 62 (20.9%)
Specific Improvements to the Charter: 52 (17.5%)
Regional Representation: 48 (16.2%)
General Positive: 48 (16.2%)
Overall Concerns with UCoC: 31 (10.4%)
Miscellaneous: 24 (8.1%)
Relationship to Other Groups: 16 (5.4%)
Readibility/Translation: 16 (5.4%)

Specific improvements to the U4C Charter

Full comments

52 voters left comments with specific items for changes to the Charter. Recurring comments included:

changing the age limitations for committee members
clarifying aspects of the U4C’s voting and decision-making procedures
changing the election processes
planning how to deal with resignations
establishing oversight of the U4C
modifying conflict-of-interest rules

Other commenters left copyediting suggestions, pointed out typos, and offered improvements to the layout of the document.

Readability and Translations

Full comments

16 voters commented on aspects of the Charter’s readability and reading level, as well as the quality of translations. Voters perceived difficulties in the Charter’s tone and word choices, with some finding it overly technical or legalistic. Some pointed out specific difficulties in translations, such as the use of English acronyms (“U4C”) and requested a larger glossary of terms.

Regional representation

Full comments

Specifics on how global representation will be achieved in the U4C was the focus for 12 voters. Some had reservations about how the regions are delineated, with South Asia and the East, South East Asia, and the Pacific (ESEAP) region being a concern for several voters. Several voters opposed the concept of having any regionally-designated seats, while others offered other potential improvements to the designations.

Relationship to other wikimedia groups and communities

Full comments

11 voters highlighted issues where the U4C could come in conflict with local governance, including local administration and Arbitration Committees. Concerns were raised about the U4C’s jurisdiction and how it will interact with some of the larger, older Wikimedia communities.

Concerns with the UCoC/Enforcement Guidelines

Full comments

31 voters focused on concerns about the UCoC policy and its Enforcement Guidelines. These concerns included:

dissatisfaction with wording in the policy
concerns that the UCoC policy itself was not the subject of a community-wide ratification vote
dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the process (such as the U4C Building Committee being selected, rather than elected)
concerns about how regional and cultural differences will make enforcement difficult
the potential for weaponization of certain passages in the policy

General: Positive

Full comments

48 voters made comments in support of the Charter, including:

thanking the people who have worked on it
expressing positive views on the Charter itself
appreciation of the consultation process
expressing hope that the U4C will have a positive impact on their communities.

Some voters expressed some reservations about the Charter text, but said they felt it was sufficient to be implemented.

General: Negative

Full comments

63 voters left comments that expressed generally negative opinions on the UCoC, its Enforcement Guidelines, and the U4C. These include:

concerns of increasing levels of bureaucracy
perceived political bias in the documents
concerns about Wikimedia Foundation staff and resources being used in the process
general concerns about the UCoC not being effective or necessary
general opposition to codes of conduct

Some voters voiced concerns about the pace of development of the UCoC and its processes, worries that the policy will be weaponized, general distrust in the Wikimedia Foundation, and preference for the status quo before the drafting of the UCoC.

Miscellaneous

Full comments

24 voters left comments that were either null (“N/A/”, “Nil”), difficult to categorize (“I have no idea”), humorous (“hamburger”), or addressed topics outside of the scope of the Charter (such as the right to edit anonymously through an IP address).