Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2025/Proposed Changes

Error in the comparison

Hi! I've just fixed an error I found in the comparison between the two documents. I noticed it while randomly looking at stuff and don't have time to check the rest of the page to see if there are any other issues, but someone should probably look through it just in case. 2A00:807:D9:A2AF:955C:7336:F392:C6F 18:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Just did and changed. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! 2A00:807:D9:A2AF:29C5:73BC:FE8C:9F86 06:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal A: Language Adjustments

I have some concerns with some of the proposed changes, specifically the new requirement that Wikimedia community members who moderate Wikimedia-related spaces on third party platforms are required to incorporate the UCoC into their policies. This requirement is unclear, places an undue burden on off-wiki spaces, and is unlikely to be effective.

First, it is unclear what a "Wikimedia-related space" is. I am a participant in several spaces that discuss Wikimedia-related topics to some degree, but I would not designate all of them as "Wikimedia-related spaces". Some of them are private spaces for friends, others are private or semi-public role-based spaces, others are primarily Wikimedia-directed, while others discuss broader topics that occasionally relate to Wikimedia projects. Many of these spaces have never or almost never taken a moderation action, and many (especially if you count all the IRC channels) have no policies whatsoever. It also likely applies to unexpected places, such as the comments on a Wikimedia contributor's YouTube video or the replies in a Wikimedia contributor's single-user Mastodon instance.

When the EGs were written, off-wiki non-event moderation structures were explicitly considered to not be local enforcement structures for the purposes of the EGs. This means that there is no requirement for potential UCoC violations to be reported to the off-wiki moderators, nor do off-wiki enforcement structures receive the deference normally afforded to local enforcement structures. The proposed changes do not change this, except for mildly strengthening the suggestion that UCoC violations be reported to the off-wiki moderation structure when it exists.

The requirement to incorporate the UCoC into their policies is unclear, as it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The strongest interpretation would require the full implementation of the enforcement guidelines, including the requirement to develop conflict of interest, appeal, and reporting policies and procedures. This would represent an undue burden to place on spaces as small as an IRC channel with 3 people in it, for example. It is also unclear how a Wikimedia-related space in a larger space, such as the #wikimedia channel in the OpenStreetMap US Slack, would implement this requirement. A less burdensome interpretation would be that it would be sufficient to place "The UCoC Enforcement Guidelines require us to notify you that the UCoC exists" in the rules, without doing any other implementation work. This would not result in any changes to UCoC enforcement or off-wiki moderation, and would likely result in all but the largest off-wiki spaces ignoring the requirement as obviously inapplicable, especially the spaces that have never taken any moderation actions.

It is not in doubt that the UCoC applies to all online and offline Wikimedia spaces: this is only a question of how it should be enforced, and by whom. This change would not meaningfully change how the UCoC is enforced off-wiki, and would not apply to the worst off-wiki spaces as they are largely moderated by people who do not consider themselves part of the community. I welcome the removal of the suggestion that off-wiki spaces require anyone to respect the UCoC. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Speaking for myself here, this change was prompted by many reports about off-wiki spaces that have been subpar in enforcing UCoC violations. Several other community members have pointed to this wording, but the feedback was received late in the review process, some members of the U4C discussed and we decided not to make a last minute change on this.

I firmly believe in the motivation behind this wording, and it is that UCoC violations in off-wiki spaces must be treated seriously. And people who moderate those spaces must be aware of the UCoC.

Even though the current wording sounds like all off-wiki spaces must have some policy respecting the UCoC, I'd not use that sentence to pester people like that. It is fine if the UCoC is implemented and enforced without any written policy. But this is something we could hopefully point to when we see an off-wiki platform that has actually failed to enforce when UCoC violations have occurred.

I agree that the wording is not optimal, but I believe that the U4C will not abuse this by following this clause strictly to the letter, and if this passes, we can do something about it in the 2026 annual review. (which I will probably also help organize as that will be within my term) 0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You advocate and intend for one thing, but the policy changes the U4C has proposed do something else. I have little trust in current U4C members saying that future committees will or won't do something, especially given that the EG drafting committee specifically decided to not require off-wiki spaces to directly enforce the UCoC, something which the U4C should have known. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I was on the fence about this. When we got feedback on this, which was before the changes were put out to vote but after the last feedback round had ended, I initiated an internal discussion. The result of that discussion was that we would not make any last-minute changes to the proposal.

I have less institutional knowledge than other members of the U4C (and wasn't aware of this particular decision being made by the drafting committee), but I had time to work on it and that I thought most changes were pretty much finalized from previous discussions. (and as a side note, it probably would have been delayed considerably if I hadn't revised the proposals based on the feedback we've got, and regrouped the proposals to units that made sense) I apologize if this specific change isn't as well-thought-out as you hoped. I personally felt that it probably would have been better to change it to something like Wikimedia community members who moderate Wikimedia-related spaces on third party platforms are required to [enforce] the UCoC, but this is already up for voting.

I'd be on the committee for one more year, and I'd push back for any misuse of this clause if it was to happen, but I trust that our committee will collective do the right thing instead of being authoritarian for authoritarian sake. I'll make sure to note this for the next annual review if I am serving the committee when that happens, and propose changes to make the wording better. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I'm not entirely sure about the EG drafting committee specifically decided to not require off-wiki spaces to directly enforce the UCoC (given that I proposed a different wording that still says off-wiki spaces need to enforce the UCoC).

One of the questions about this clause is whether "incorporating the UCoC into their policies" means that off-wiki spaces must explicitly mention the UCoC or have language similar to the UCoC about conduct. I don't think we'll do anything about off-wiki spaces that treat UCoC violations appropriately but don't codify it into written rules. But if the question is about whether the EG should say, if at all, what off-wiki spaces must or should do, then that I think should be discussed more. It is true that off-wiki spaces are not obliged to do anything, just like Wikipedia editors are not obliged to do anything, but my impression of that clause that that is something the U4C can point to in cases of failure to enforce the UCoC in off-wiki spaces to justify placing on-wiki sanctions to users whose off-wiki UCoC violations had not been appropriately responded to. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ACN that the wording is too unclear here.

As an example, I co-run a social media server with a relatively large (but definitely not 100%) percentage of our direct users being involved in Wikimedia projects in some way or another. The percentage of posts related to Wikimedia projects is much smaller since people use it like any other social media site and post things like updates about their favourite sport or photos of cute trains. In addition the server does not use any Wikimedia resources, funding or branding, so I don't believe the UCoC can place any requirements on how we run and moderate that server, but just the fact that the wording is ambigious enough that someone could plausibly argue that it tries to do that anyway is problematic in my eyes. Taavi (talk!) 19:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that interactions between Wikimedians on that Mastodon instance are still subject to the UCoC, especially when all parties know that they are interacting with other Wikimedians.

As an example, we had a previous case where we sanctioned a user on-wiki for posts on Twitter about other editors. The specific cases require context about who your audience is (are the people you are talking to Wikimedians), and what content you are talking about, before forming a perspective on whether specific off-wiki interactions are under the jurisdiction of UCoC or not.

As for the specific wording, I'll just toss another one out here as an alternative (but we'd still probably wait another year for a change on this to happen, see my comments above):

Wikimedia community members who moderate Wikimedia-related spaces on third party platforms are [expected to respond to UCoC violations appropriately, taking enforcement measures where needed and possible.] 0xDeadbeef (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

When "recommended" is changed to "must", also is clear. This is dictature. ГеоргиУики (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Difference between "i.e." and "e.g."

In Proposal B, Section 5 (Glossary), examples of a high level decision-making body are prefaced with "i.e." (translation: id est, or that is). This is a limiting phrase, and means that only the groups that are part of the example are included. Instead, recommend that the preface be "e.g." (translation: exemplia gratia or for example) which means that the group includes but is not limited to those in the examples. This is important because section 4.2.1 (Jurisdiction) already includes other groups as high level decision-making bodies. Risker (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably better to drop the Latin entirely. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you, AntiCompositeNumber. Using "for example" (which I believe was always the intended language) is easier for translations and is a common phrase in most languages. Risker (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Definitely something we can look at for the 2026 Annual Review. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Not quite sure why it needs to wait a full year to correct this; it can be treated as equivalent to a typographical error. (Please tell me you wouldn't wait a full year to fix a typo.) Risker (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

We'll discuss, if we can change the meaning without a formal community vote. Personally, i am skeptical. This is not a typo, but a different meaning. Ghilt (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Also agree with the dropping of the Latin - e.g. and i.e. But "for example" is the exact same meaning as e.g. and i.e. is the exact same meaning as "that is". Or am I misunderstanding the request to change as i.e. into e.g. or something? Also, since they are the exact same why wait to change it? Legal reasons?

Best regards, Klemens Kmw2700 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I have read it again. Risker suggests to change the meaning from "that is" to "for example". Hmm. That might need further looking into if it should include others than the mentioned ones (high level decision bodies).

Greetings, Kmw2700 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Question 1 from Gryllida

I didn't understand why the "However no more than two members can be elected from the same home wiki, this number including the members elected In the Regional part distribution group as well." part was removed. It looks like now 'more than two members can be elected from the same home wiki'. Why is this needed? Gryllida 08:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida thanks for your question. Other U4C members might have their own pieces to add, but from my perspective we're trying to make changes to help us get to a full 16 member committee. 8 people has been functional, but has also meant we're all spread thin and we're regularly not meeting deadlines for ourselves. The community has, so far, shown that it has a pretty high expectation for the kinds of people it's willing to support at the 60% threshold. Given this, I wanted a thoughtful approach about how we ensure diversity of perspective on the committee. I think the regional diversity is important at providing differing perspectives and skills and so that remains unchanged. I also think we have the opportunity with the potential to add 4 non-voting members to do a more wholistic job of ensuring project diversity than we've gotten so far from elections. And I am hopeful that there will be a pathway from non-voting member to member that will help us in the longrun have a better diversity of perspectives than we've gotten so far. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida, as my dear colleague has stated, there currently are many empty seats and especially from imo underrepresented projects. We do not have members from Sub-Saharan Africa or South America. That is one reason we are proposing to introduce the possibility of appointed and non-voting seats, which would predominantly be filled with expertise and background that we currently do not have. We also hope that their experience gained will help for their candidacy for a voting seat.

Then there is another point: the home wiki rule is not really compatible with english-speaking projects like en.wp, commons and wikidata. In these projects there is untapped diversity due to the home wiki rule. For example, we currently have a wonderful member who is not from the "male white north" group, but their home wiki is en.wp. We could not take another member like that because we have reached the maximum of two members with en.wp as their home wiki, even though that would increase our plurality of views and backgrounds. And it's the same problem with commons and wikidata.

A rather technical third point is that there is no cheat-proof method to identify a home wiki in a standardized and fair way. For example, the self-proclamation is open to misrepresentation. Another example, the "edit number criterium" doesn't work due to projects like Wikidata or Commons, where many Wikipedia users have a similar amount or even more edits than in the projects where they spend most of their time - these users would get to choose which home wiki they want and pure Commons or pure Wikidata editors would not get this advantage - this is not fair to others. Then, there have been candidates who claim to be from a different region or a different home wiki simply to avoid the seat limits due to home wiki or region. So, the home wiki rule is unfair and open to misrepresentation, and there is no method to prove misrepresentation when it happens - one can only mention a suspicion in the "questions to the candidate", but that is not a proof. --Ghilt (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same question. Which is one part of why I voted "oppose" to this item. Kmw2700 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Question 2 from Gryllida

And what are 'annual reviews'? Gryllida 08:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What we're doing here; it's the chance to amend the three documents (UCoC, Enforcement Guidelines, and Charter). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

yup, one of the U4C's tasks is to provide a possibility to change the three documents every year. This is the first annual review. Ghilt (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

improved language clarity

mir gefällt der Punkt besonders, denn Wikimedia ist ja ein vielsprachiges Projekt. Daher ist das improven der Sprachklarheit ein wichtiger Aspekt. Zum Glück nur in englisch, denn ein internationales und vielsprachiges Projekt kann ja seine Gesetze nicht auch noch in mehreren Sprachen anbieten. Wo kämem wir da hin. 🤣 SCNR. ...
Wird jmd. der gegen die Verhaltensrichtlinie verstößt aber kein englisch spricht dann erstmal eine Übersetzung geliefert damit er weiß warum er verurteilt wird oder läuft der Prozess dann wie bei Kafka? ...Sicherlich ^Post 13:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Sicherlich, ich habe deine ironischen Anmerkungen bereits auf der Diskussionsseite des Kuriers gelesen. Ironie ist selten hilfreich, um ein Anliegen zu erfüllen, weil sie nicht konstruktiv bzw. zielorientiert ist. Ironie ist gut zur Unterhaltung. Übertreibung übrigens auch. Nun zum Inhalt: dein Argument trifft auch nicht zu. Es gibt den UCoC auf deutsch und vielen anderen Sprachen, s. UCoC. --Ghilt (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Building on Ghilt's answer, I will note that as someone who helped draft the EG and Charter, ease of translation has been a priority. I know there are foundation provided translations for many languages, including Deutsch, and volunteers have translated the documents into other languages. I hope these efforts continue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Ja, es stimmt, es gibt ihn auf deutsch. Und hier stimme ich über Änderungen ab. Und was für Änderungen das sind erfährt der Nicht-Englisch-Sprechende dann nach der Abstimmung? Immer noch Kafka. ...
Und nein, Ironie hilft nicht. Aber ernsthafte Argumente auch nicht. Das Spiel der WMF andere Sprachen zu ignorieren läuft ja nun schon seit vielen vielen Jahren. Zu Beginn war es das Geld, das vorgeschoben wird. Nun ist die WMF vermögend, aber irgendwie ists immer noch eher zufällig ob, wann und wenn ja in welche Sprachen übersetzt wird. Das ist inhaltlich damit wertlos ...Sicherlich ^Post 19:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Wir werden das besprechen, ob wir beim nächsten Durchgang 2026 von der WMF Übersetzungen der Vorschläge bekommen können. Grüße, -- Ghilt (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Gut ... oder ob nur englisch-sprechende abstimmen sollten. Letzteres ist billiger und bringt vermeidet ggf. auch weitere Diskussionen (Sorry, aber dieses "danke für Deinen Input" und ähnliches wird seit jahren (Jahrzehnten?) erzählt.) ...Sicherlich ^Post 21:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hallo,

Also ich muss auch sagen, dass ich erwartet habe die Aenderungen eines so wichtigen Documents sollten auch in anderen Sprachen vorhanden sein. Gibt ja weiss Gott genug Leute die so etwas uebersetzten koennen und wollen.

Und die Sprache des Englischen ist bei den Aenderungen sehr technisch. Obwohl ich seit ueber 10 Jahren in einem englischsprachigen Land wohne, und auch wissenschaftliches English lese, hab ich da einiges nicht so ganz verstanden.

Schoener Gruss, Kmw2700 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Definition confusion in Part 1

I highlighted a section of concern in 1. UCoC Enforcement Guidelines:
"These Enforcement Guidelines describe how the community and Wikimedia Foundation achieve the goals of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)."

A code of conduct isn't about goals. Goals are part of policies. A code of conduct is not a policy. Rather, a code of conduct comprises ethics and rules for acceptable organizational behavior. Wikipedia editors must be compliant with the UCoC in order to participate in the Wikipedia project. Monitoring is necessary to ensure compliance. If an editor's behavior is out of compliance, the editor has committed a violation: THEN enforcement must be imposed.

The remaining Parts describe enforcement for violations, make provisions for locality, number of enforcers, editor education and training about the UCoC, etc. These are clear and an improvement over the prior version UCoC: that's because imperatives are used more often in the new version. Much better! Thank you for considering my inquiry. FeralOink (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the wording is intended to reflect any lack of monitoring/enforcement/compliance, I think it's just a by-product of writing by committee that sometimes strange wordings are used. What wording do you think would be more appropriate? There's no time to include it in this round but we can save the comment for next year. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! I recommend this: Don't describe the UCoC as having goals. Rephrase to "These Enforcement Guidelines describe how the community and Wikimedia Foundation are compliant with the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). Or "ensure compliance with". Something like that. Anything that doesn't use the word "goals", because the UCoC isn't aspirational. Adherence to and compliance with the UCoC is expected, not optional.--FeralOink (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested text! We will consider it for inclusion next year at the latest. I agree that wording is better and your rationale is solid. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Формулировки очень важны, а ощущение, что вы их хотите отвергнуть. Что самое странное, во многих статьях теперь формулировки странные, я думаю, что это только оттолкнет всех от платформы. Safinrus (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Right to be heard?

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.

Seems like a far cry from @Gnom's more specific criteria. Lumbering in thought (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this rings a bell for me. Under the cozy umbrella of "protecting privacy and safety of undisclosed list of persons" literally any amount of sloppiness or downright shady work by a committee in charge can be hidden. This is deeply troubling. It is unwise to construct a bureaucratic structure that can at whim shut itself from outside inspection, while being invincible to its victims. Over time it *has* to go bad.

There must be left a peek hole to people outside of structure, at least in the form of "right to be heard" for the person under the investigation, it must be hard rule to keep the people in charge in check.

And, frankly, I find hypocritical the reasoning that raises every now and then that "we cannot disclose the essence of violation to the violating person because this puts in danger the person who complained" because if the real bulling took place then obviously the bully knows who they were bullying and, subsequently, who filled the complain.

Under no circumstances governance structure may be able to attack an innocent individual and get over it with no consequences, but the current edition of UCoC is effectively permitting that by the wordings like "may be limited to protect privacy and safety". Леголегс (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I will be abstaining from voting for a few days until @Barkeep49, who was active in the Enforcement Guidelines feedback thread, weighs in. I see no "Inventa lege, inventa fraude" when these are effectively clawbacks for the new "lege" which was broad in and of itself. Lumbering in thought (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that the U4C decided not to propose changes to that section. We extensively discussed several ideas, with the various wordings by Gnom getting the most attention. Voting against these proposed changes thus does not change that right either way. Importantly I will note that this committee has reached out in every one of our private cases to the other party. As I indicated on that page I found the specific criteria proposed more technical than the existing wording without a substantial change in obligation to contact. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What continues to bother me the most is the missing justification for not granting a right to be heard, considering that it is an established human right. Gnom (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not surprised you disagree with the decision not to move forward. But there is a right to be heard. It's not absolute - for the very reasons you ultimately proposed three exceptions - but the fact that I believe it already to be a right is why I prefer to keep the existing language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping something would change. Barring that, abstaining is the most appealing choice for me. A right - valuing something more than something else, and requiring very clear language (not vacuous prevention of shame) where the exception proves the rule, not dependent on clinical language like "usually[,]" is a big issue for me. But something to that effect can still be put in. Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the term "usually" gives decision makers just way too much leeway. Gnom (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Translating these changes

مرحبا. إن عدم ترجمة هذه التعديلات للغات المختلفة يجعل عملية التصويت مُضللة! حيث يوجد عدد كبير من المستخدمين يُفضلون وجود نسخة منها مترجمة إلى لغتهم الأم. Dr-Taher (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I wish we had more ability to do more translations but I worry about posting. machine translations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"Wikimedia Foundation will be able to achieve the goals of the Universal" grammar

The very first proposed change is to change "Wikimedia Foundation will be able to achieve the goals of the Universal Code" to "Wikimedia Foundation achieve the goals of the Universal Code". This makes the sentence grammatically incorrect in English. Possible alternatives would be "Foundation achieves the goals" or "Foundation can achieve the goals". -- 23:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC) Infrogmation (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The full sentence should be how the community and Wikimedia Foundation achieve the goals 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)