Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct

Misrepresentations or disinformation not covered?

I have been dealing with a user who makes personal attacks, but also surely deliberate misrepresentations of my contributions. I notified him of numerous failures to respect the CoC, yet I ended up failing to show clear violations of the CoC for both of these issues, which I consider the gravest. In particular, I am surprised the Code does not explicitly prohibit misrepresentations of actions of colleagues, or at least―more generally―disinformation. Wikipedia does have a guideline against misrepresentation, but for Meta-Wiki behavior, I ended up with nothing stronger/clearer than the last paragraph, which merely invokes section 2 (expectation of collegiality).

Am I missing something, or does the CoC not declare misrepresentation nor disinformation in general as unacceptable? Chealer (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Deimmunization

One problem I've faced is when a user is warned against or prevented from pursuit of a remedy for offensive comments by someone in a position of power. Does this need to be included in a bullet point itself:

• Endorsing uncivility: Intentionally deterring or stopping another user from dealing with comments they could reasonably perceive as uncivil. We expect that users are able to respond reasonably to comments that they object to and that their concerns are validated if reasonable, particularly by people with community authority because unaddressed uncivil comments may harm the health of the community.

Or is this already implied by the existing points?

Consider these declined and U4C-misinterpreted cases:

• Systemic failure to provide UCoC protection by ENWP admins
• 中文维基文库管理员Midleading对红渡厨的封禁争议 第二次
  • I believe that this case's filer has left Wikimedia because of the dispute :(

Faster than Thunder (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I have a question. Where in the Universal Code of Conduct is sockpuppetry forbidden? I see sections forbidding harassment and content vandalism. Sockpuppetry isn't either harassment or vandalism, although sockpuppets are often used to harass or vandalize. Have I missed something, or is there another code, or is sockpuppetry only forbidden in all of the local projects? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Local UCoC enforcement structure on zhwiki — recognition requirements and appeal routing to the U4C

Dear members of the U4C,

I am an editor on Chinese Wikipedia, writing in my personal capacity. Our community is holding an RfC on our arbitration mechanism (w:zh:WP:RFC/ARB2026); I have participated in it and have been preparing participant summaries for the eventual closer. This inquiry conveys questions raised during the discussion and does not represent the community or the RfC initiator.

One topic concerns establishing a local UCoC enforcement structure, with our Arbitration Committee handling UCoC-related complaints — including, under the option currently favoured in discussion, certain off-wiki conduct that affects on-wiki activity on Chinese Wikipedia (with strict intake criteria, and with severe cases such as threats to personal safety referred to the Foundation or global mechanisms rather than handled locally). The proposal designates the U4C as the appellate body for such cases. Before the community finalizes the outcome, clarification on the following would be helpful:

1. Does the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines' provision for local enforcement structures cover jurisdiction over off-wiki conduct connected to a single project, or is off-wiki conduct considered to fall to the U4C in the first instance?
2. Are there formal requirements or a recognition process for a local ArbCom to be considered a UCoC enforcement structure, or does a local consensus suffice?
3. If our ArbCom rules on a UCoC-related case, what is the correct procedural route for an appeal to reach the U4C, and are there format or documentation requirements we should build into our local policy?
4. Where a case spans multiple projects or languages, the current draft directs coordination with other communities and the U4C rather than unilateral local handling — does this match the U4C's expectations?

I will post a copy of this inquiry, and any reply, on the RfC page for community transparency. Thank you — the aim is to ensure the local structure complements rather than conflicts with the global framework. Taiwania Justo (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)