Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Project
This page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Project.
Please remember to:
Discussion navigation:
|
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
Interpretation of article 3
Hello U4C,
(ping @Barkeep49, @Borschts, @BRPever, @Civvì, @EggRoll97, @EPIC, @Ferien, @Ghilt, @Luke081515, @Superzerocool, @Toadspike, @ToprakM, @Torque, @기나ㅏㄴ)
I'd like to bring to your attention a difference in interpretation of the UCoC we have on the Dutch Wikipedia, where part of the community reasons that the UCoC does not apply to groups of people, but only to individuals who are explicitly mentioned (the most narrow interpretation of the "personal attack"), and also very much not when a group is mentioned in a most general framing (in the specific case of today, "trans men") in a discussion on an article talk page (so: without directly referring to those in that group from our community).
I blocked Marrakech today for continuing an argument via their talk page in the same tone they were already blocked for yesterday by my collegae. Per the dispute described above, some users from our community are now doubting the correctness of my interpretation, as well as the one from my collegae before. I am therefore requesting clarification from you. My reasoning in the discussion on the talkpage translates in English as the following:
Dear commenters,
This has long since ceased to be about a single edit. And yes, Marrakech’s entire attitude toward this project is anti-UCoC. To think that a personal attack doesn’t count if the statement refers to a group rather than naming a specific person is a completely false interpretation of our guidelines as well as the UCoC. The UCoC concerns behavior — whether in articles, on talk pages, in all other online spaces where Wikipedians discuss matters and interact with one another, or in offline settings where they meet. You can discuss the content of articles, and the use and quality of sources can be debated. However, you should keep your personal beliefs —especially if they are harmful to other project participants— out of these discussions as much as possible, and certainly not repeat them constantly or spread them so widely. Due to the constant hatred these comments exude —now evident once again on this talk page— I have extended the block to an indefinite period. You are free to contact the U4C to appeal this decision.
Following this reasoning and the extensive blocklog of the said user, they have now been blocked for infinite time on Dutch Wikipedia, and their user page is deleted because of toxic content. Is my interpretation correct? Your advice would be appreciated. Ciell (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Apparently the block is because of the use of "zogenoemde transmannen". It should be noted that there is a subtle language issue involved here. If the user had used just "transmannen", this would appear to have been no more than an indication of the topic. If he had used "zogenaamde transmannen" this would have been disparaging. Use of "zogenoemde" is acknowledged to be neutral, and at best represents the use of a superfluous adjective. - Brya (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Brya this is not correct. It would be a misunderstanding to think that the infinite block is about one single edit: this block is about a long, consistent, and clearly unchangeable pattern of editing behavior on Dutch Wikipedia.
- I am not requesting a complete review of this user's case, which is far more wide than just the recent edits on the pregnancy article: for now, I'd like to know if my reading of the UCoC is correct here. If the U4C needs more information from me, I am sure they will reach out.
- If the user themselves wants to bring this case in for an appeal, it would be up to them to do so. Ciell (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Apparently the block is because of the use of "zogenoemde transmannen". It should be noted that there is a subtle language issue involved here. If the user had used just "transmannen", this would appear to have been no more than an indication of the topic. If he had used "zogenaamde transmannen" this would have been disparaging. Use of "zogenoemde" is acknowledged to be neutral, and at best represents the use of a superfluous adjective. - Brya (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Well, here the admin involved states that the block is based on this single edit. Of course there is a pattern (somewhat like a dog with a bone), of strongly arguing his points but (1) the points he argues mostly have (a degree of) substance and (2) he tends to be (mostly) aware of the effects of his phrasing. Admittedly, I have not gone over most of his edits, and in some cases in the past he has transgressed. Speaking in general, I do understand that he irritates some other users, but it is not clear to me that this is hopeless. - Brya (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Brya conveniently left out the part that followed on “zogenoemde transmannen” where he said “Dat zij zich mogelijk niet in de term vrouw herkennen, is daarbij irrelevant en niet iets waar een encyclopedie zich om hoeft te bekommeren.” Which translates to “The fact that they may not identify with the term "woman" is irrelevant and not something an encyclopedia needs to concern itself with” in which he implies that we should not take into account users of the encyclopedia who do not identify as women but are biologically assigned female at birth. This is the violation of the UCoC that I blocked him for, where he responded it wasn’t targeted to anyone in particular and which Ciell now wants confirmed is in violation with the rules. ContextCreator (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also, as Ciell already mentioned. The blocks were not based on this single edit alone. This is a very consistent pattern and was just the last straw. I mentioned in my initial block how this single edit would usually end up in a warning, and I gave 4 reasons why in this case there would be no use in doing so.
- Anyways, this is not the right place to discuss the block itself, we can do that on our wiki. The question here was if our interpretation of the UCoC was correct. ContextCreator (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Well that really all depends on who's included in that "we" and "our". This discussion concerns the correct or incorrect application of the Universal Code of Conduct. Naturally, this directly relates to the block in question as the UCoC was used to justify it.Vlaemink (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Brya conveniently left out the part that followed on “zogenoemde transmannen” where he said “Dat zij zich mogelijk niet in de term vrouw herkennen, is daarbij irrelevant en niet iets waar een encyclopedie zich om hoeft te bekommeren.” Which translates to “The fact that they may not identify with the term "woman" is irrelevant and not something an encyclopedia needs to concern itself with” in which he implies that we should not take into account users of the encyclopedia who do not identify as women but are biologically assigned female at birth. This is the violation of the UCoC that I blocked him for, where he responded it wasn’t targeted to anyone in particular and which Ciell now wants confirmed is in violation with the rules. ContextCreator (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- On 6 July 2026 the following "Zwangerschap treedt voornamelijk op bij vrouwen, mits zij een baarmoeder hebben, maar ook non-binaire mensen en transgender mannen met een baarmoeder kunnen zwanger raken." was inserted on the page in question, and the essence of that survives to this day ("Ook transgender mannen en non-binaire personen kunnen - indien zij over een baarmoeder beschikken - zwanger worden.") Apparently this is not felt to be a problem. The gap between the accepted text and the remark does not strike me as all that big. - Brya (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
@All, just noting that the PO asked for an interpretation of a specific part of the UCoC wich we are discussing and will provide. We certainly won't go into the details of the specific block, which is why this is not the appropriate venue for discussing local situations. Thank you. On behalf of the U4C, --Civvì (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- A comment regarding interpretation from a non-U4C person: wikis may also have their own local policies, and if conduct violated a local policy then someone may be locally blocked or sanctioned for that regardless of whether the UCoC prohibited that conduct. ↠Pine (✉) 21:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
@All - Both ContextCreator and Ciell have based their decisions to block me on two accusations, both of which are unfounded.
First, they claim that my use of the phrase “zogenoemde transmannen” was a deliberate attempt to deny or delegitimize the identity of trans men. As Brya has already noted on this page, this interpretation is incorrect: the term “zogenoemde” is widely acknowledged to be neutral and, at worst, merely a superfluous adjective. In any case, I was not referring to trans men within the Dutch Wikipedia community, but to trans men among the general readership of the Dutch Wikipedia.
Second, they argue that my statement “The fact that they may not identify with the term ‘woman’ is irrelevant and not something an encyclopedia needs to concern itself with” violates the UCoC. This too is mistaken. Contrary to what Ciell implies, my remark was not directed at any specific user or group of users in the Wikipedia community. I did not even use the words user or users. As is clear from the discussion on the article’s talk page, I was referring exclusively to the readers (lezers in Dutch) of the Dutch Wikipedia. Since the UCoC applies only to interactions between users of the encyclopedia, and not to comments about its readership, my remark falls outside its scope. (For context, the substance of my remark was that the Dutch Wikipedia article on pregnancy does not need to include references to trans men, as it deals entirely with female biology: it is about sex, not gender. People may agree or disagree with that view, but it is a legitimate editorial opinion that deserves to be respected in a content discussion.)
Now that both accusations have proven to be demonstrably false, largely caused by a misreading of what I actually wrote, what can be expected to be the next step? Marrakech (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with "zogenoemde" being a neutral adjective, as argued by Brya and Marrakech. Take into account the use of that word in nl.wikipedia articles only. You'll find over 4,600 hits. I looked at the first dozens, and in all cases 'zogenoemde' has the neutral meaning of 'as it is normally called' or 'in jargon'. So, Marrakech's use of it being 'the last straw' (ContextCreator) wouldn't apply here, which takes away the rationale for the initial 6 months block for Marrakech, and, inextricably connected with that, the indefinite block that Ciell imposed on him. Both decisions very much seem to have been taken in a rush. To both nl.wikipedia admins, Marrakech rightfully asked the question what can be expected to be the next step. Apdency (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Apdency, Brya and Marrakech on this. De Wikischim (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
@All - Meanwhile, two long-standing Dutch Wikipedia users, Wimpus and Apdency, who had publicly criticised the blocks imposed on me by administrators ContextCreator and Ciell, have themselves now been blocked by admin Daniuu. Their offence? Posting perfectly innocuous comments on the talk page of the article about pregnancy.
In that discussion, they used an analogy to argue against a proposed template for articles dealing with female biology. As is well established, in any substantive discussion the strategic use of analogy serves as a powerful tool to clarify one's point of view. Far from being a rhetorical trick, it is a respected argumentative technique. Even if an analogy may have a mildly parodic or humorous tone, it is still a perfectly legitimate device. It can provide a touch of comic relief, while at the same time helping fellow users see the issue from a fresh perspective, and keeping a conversation productive rather than purely combative.
Admin Daniuu evidently disagrees. In his block rationale for Apdency, he wrote:
"Your parody of Elly’s template is a (needless) mild dig (directed, amongst others, at Ellywa) and does not constitute a constructive continuation of the discussion; see also WP:PUNT. [...] In doing so, you have also breached points 2.1 (due to the somewhat unusual comparison) and (in particular) 3.1 – trolling – of the UCoC."
While Daniuu is entitled to his personal opinion on the use of such analogies, as an administrator he has no right to block users simply because he dislikes their argumentative style. Describing a “somewhat unusual comparison” as a breach of section 2.1 of the UCoC, absent any concrete substantiation, represents a significant overreach and establishes a dangerous precedent. Classifying the analogy itself as “trolling” under section 3.1 of the UCoC is even more tenuous and equally alarming.
The Dutch Wikipedia is becoming a space where a group of administrators — including Daniuu, ContextCreator, and Ciell — are summarily silencing dissenting voices through arbitrary blocks. These actions are often justified with vague, blanket references to the UCoC (such as lack of "mutual respect") that make meaningful defence nearly impossible.
Ironically, such behaviour itself undermines the very principles of the UCoC by eroding the safety, inclusion, and openness of the project. External intervention may ultimately be necessary to restore balance. Marrakech (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Outrageously enough, the block on Wimpus remains in place. His perfectly reasonable request — ‘Kunt u met een citaat precies aangeven waar ik over de schreef ga?’ ('Can you provide an exact quotation showing precisely where I crossed the line?') — has been completely ignored by admin Daniuu, despite the vague nature of his original accusation. This silence itself amounts to contempt. Daniuu has a clear moral obligation to provide a prompt and detailed reply to Wimpus’s question. The same obligation applies to the questions raised by Strepulah, who rightly draws attention to the double standards applied by Daniuu, standards that reflect the two-tier blocking policy practised by the group of admins referred to earlier. Marrakech (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Daniuu has now defended his block of Wimpus by claiming that Wimpus’s statement — that it is “reasonably self-evident” to interpret the terms “man” and “woman” in their traditional (biological) sense when discussing a biological subject — violates UCoC point 2.1 because it disrespects other users and their gender identity. That argument is wrong on multiple levels.
- UCoC is a rule against personal attacks, harassment, bullying and the like. It is not a requirement to accept contested ideological claims as factual premises. Neither is it a ban on using ordinary biological language or a mandate to treat sex as fluid or subjective whenever transgender topics arise. Treating a calm, accurate statement about biology as a violation of “respect for gender identity” stretches the UCoC far beyond its text and intent. It turns a behavioral requirement (don’t be abusive) into a content requirement (you must affirm a particular view of sex and gender). That is viewpoint discrimination, not enforcement of civility. If the statement had been accompanied by insults, slurs, harassment or calls to mistreat transgender people, a block would have been appropriate. Here, the contested text is a mild claim about the ordinary meaning of words in a scientific register. Blocking Wimpus for it sends the message that biological clarity itself is forbidden once transgender people are mentioned. That chills legitimate discussion and does not protect anyone’s dignity.
- Daniuu blocking Wimpus constitutes a misuse of the UCoC that undermines the very safety and openness the UCoC purports to protect. What can be done to save the Dutch Wikipedia? Marrakech (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Marrakech: What can be done to save the Dutch Wikipedia? The rather less dramatic answer is to use the procedures that already exist: either follow nlwiki’s ordinary procedures to seek review of the blocks, or, if you believe this reflects a systemic UCoC problem, file a U4C case. Both routes have already been pointed out to you several times. Re-litigating the same local blocks here while pursuing neither is unlikely to save anything. -- XXBlackburnXx (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is important to note that what XXBlackburnXx describes here sounds logical and reasonable on paper, but in practice it is not. Something that XXBlackburnXx also knows perfectly well himself.
- @Marrakech: What can be done to save the Dutch Wikipedia? The rather less dramatic answer is to use the procedures that already exist: either follow nlwiki’s ordinary procedures to seek review of the blocks, or, if you believe this reflects a systemic UCoC problem, file a U4C case. Both routes have already been pointed out to you several times. Re-litigating the same local blocks here while pursuing neither is unlikely to save anything. -- XXBlackburnXx (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- The Dutch Wikipedia has, after all, been without a functioning Arbitration Committee for an unreasonably long and unhealthy time and has a very limited number of administrators who deal with blocking users who have been active for an extended period. Moreover, these same administrators (illustrated by the discussion here) generally do not make way for uninvolved admins/a third party to arbitrate unblock requests, but tend actively argue against them.
- In my opinion, the UCoC is being used arbitrarily on Dutch Wikipedia by a group of admins who use and refer to it when it suits their own goals; but largely ignore it when it doesn't. This is becoming a serious and structural problem on Dutch Wikipedia, hurting the project significantly. Vlaemink (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Every new contribution from the admins mentioned above — including yourself — only underscores how serious the problem is. It has been clearly explained why Daniuu’s reliance on UCoC 2.1 to block Wimpus is objectively and inexcusably wrong, yet your response remains purely procedural. You neither instruct Daniuu to lift the block immediately nor does Daniuu do so himself, even though that would be the straightforward and proper course of action. This reveals both the scale of the injustice that many users have suffered and how many admins are prepared to defend it. It will also likely strengthen my case should I decide to pursue the routes you have pointed out. Marrakech (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- This is the discussion.--Wickey (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Noted. I don't have anything to add beyond what I've already said: this isn't the place to overturn a block. -- XXBlackburnXx (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is getting a little complicated here: the reasons given for the blocks of Wimpus and Apdency involve how they express themselves in the debate, that is, in regard to other users. So in this respect, this concerns the UCoC in the narrow sense. On the other hand, all three users were blocked in the same debate, that on the page dealing with pregnancy. This page is having trouble because a few users want to render the page gender neutral (in a way, they want to apply the UCoC to the page). In the case of a page on pregnancy, putting the emphasis on people who have adopted the gender "woman", with only a minor role for those who were born as women is not good for the contents of the page. It proves that if other users object to this gender neutrality (of the page on pregnancy), they need to be very circumspect in how they express themselves with regard to those people (out in the world) who have adopted the gender "woman", even though these cannot become pregnant, and should not be very relevant to the page on pregnancy. In a way, it all ties together. In other ways, it shows off a range of problems on nlwiki. - Brya (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Essentially, users are blocked based on giving their personal view on a talk page, with a flawed reference to the UCoC. This is particularly disturbing where admins block users based on their personal view (the personal view of the admin). This is particularly disturbing where they impose long blocks for giving a personal view. Talk pages are clearly meant to put the personal views of users. Wickey (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oh please, they're getting banned for POV-pushing(marrakech) and WP:FORUM(contributing in a way that is unproductive or distracting)(Wimpus and Apdency), respectively. Licks-rocks (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- That is your opinion, Licks-rocks. I strongly disagree. Vinvlugt (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- As do I, in the strongest of terms. Vlaemink (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- I did notice that, yes. you are also patently wrong. For marrakech, the second the indef hit, ciell explained that it was about a long-term and intractabe behavioural issue related to his POV on trans issues. For wimpus and apdency, they were both banned with a message explaining that them respectively posting a parody template and an incredibly long-winded rambly message (among other things) endorsing that parody template was escalatory and unhelpful in an already very difficult discussion. You were active on the talk page for marrakech after that indef hit, and evidently you´d seen the messages for wimpus and apdency because you were the first person to mention those bans outside their talk pages on dutch wikipedia. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Your stance violates basic principles of fairness, due process and natural justice. Once the specific reasons given for a block have been shown to be invalid (or left unrebutted), the block cannot legitimately be maintained by invoking older, different alleged misconduct. To do otherwise is to treat the user in question as permanently tainted, as someone who can be blocked on any convenient occasion because of an alleged historical record, regardless of whether the present accusation holds up. Fair systems judge specific acts, not a person’s permanent “record” as an all-purpose warrant for future sanctions.
- I did notice that, yes. you are also patently wrong. For marrakech, the second the indef hit, ciell explained that it was about a long-term and intractabe behavioural issue related to his POV on trans issues. For wimpus and apdency, they were both banned with a message explaining that them respectively posting a parody template and an incredibly long-winded rambly message (among other things) endorsing that parody template was escalatory and unhelpful in an already very difficult discussion. You were active on the talk page for marrakech after that indef hit, and evidently you´d seen the messages for wimpus and apdency because you were the first person to mention those bans outside their talk pages on dutch wikipedia. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oh please, they're getting banned for POV-pushing(marrakech) and WP:FORUM(contributing in a way that is unproductive or distracting)(Wimpus and Apdency), respectively. Licks-rocks (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Essentially, users are blocked based on giving their personal view on a talk page, with a flawed reference to the UCoC. This is particularly disturbing where admins block users based on their personal view (the personal view of the admin). This is particularly disturbing where they impose long blocks for giving a personal view. Talk pages are clearly meant to put the personal views of users. Wickey (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- In the cases of the blocks imposed on users Wimpus and Apdency, claiming that their use of a parody template was escalatory and unhelpful in an already difficult discussion is a highly subjective judgement. It reflects one administrator’s personal assessment of tone and usefulness rather than any clear, objective breach of policy or the UCoC. Subjective impressions of this kind cannot properly serve as the basis for a block. When administrators lower the threshold for blocking to the level of “I found this unhelpful” or “this escalated the discussion in my view”, they elevate personal taste to policy. That practice is itself an abuse of the power entrusted to them. It chills legitimate expression and makes enforcement unpredictable. Fair enforcement demands clear standards applied consistently, not ad-hoc reactions to content an admin simply dislikes.
- Also, arguing against rendering the pregnancy page gender-neutral does not violate the UCoC, and a plain statement of belief that trans men are women also does not, by itself, violate it. The UCoC primarily regulates interpersonal conduct (respect, civility, harassment) among participants, not the substantive content of encyclopedic debates or expressions of factual/philosophical views about sex and gender. Applying it to treat disagreement with gender-identity claims as inherently harassing, stretches the policy beyond its text.
- (Thus, admin Daniuu blocking user Wimpus for a similar statement (Daniuu: 'Denying the identity of readers and users, amongst others, is in breach of point 2.1 of the UCoC') is a clear abuse of administrative power under UCoC §3.2. Administrators are forbidden from using their authority to intimidate or punish others for holding disfavoured views. Treating a difference of opinion on a contested philosophical and scientific question as a sanctionable offence converts the blocking tool into an instrument of ideological enforcement. That is precisely the kind of abuse the UCoC prohibits. Such viewpoint-based blocking also undermines the project’s commitment to open discussion and accuracy. The UCoC was written to protect participants from harassment and power abuse, not to compel orthodoxy on sex and gender.)
- It is regrettable that, among other things, basic principles of fairness and proper process need to be spelled out. They ought to be self-evident common knowledge, particularly to admins, who can be expected to uphold higher standards of restraint and due process. Marrakech (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- It is getting even worse. In a discussion initiated by a user who feels unsafe because of the arbitrary blocks, user Geschiedenisnerd — cheered on by others including admin ContextCreator — writes about me: “What you cannot do, however, is use those views as a stick with which to beat others and cause them harm, and that is precisely what Marrakech does time and again. Marrakech clearly has an interest in driving transgender people away from the Wiki. After all, the Wiki would then be edited less evenly — meaning he could insert his opinions, which are rarely supported by facts, into articles without them being reverted.”
- Once again these accusations of “beating” and “harming” others are made without any concrete examples. I have never insulted, demeaned, mocked or otherwise mistreated other users on the basis of their self-identification. I have stated countless times that everyone is free to identify as they wish. What I have also repeatedly said — in general terms — is that I do not believe that the gender identity some people claim for themselves is factually correct. That view, as I have explained, ought to be entirely acceptable in an environment that claims to value viewpoint diversity. Yet although I have never named any specific individual, ContextCreator and those around him go out of their way to take my general statement personally, claiming that I am out to demean and hurt them, and they therefore appear determined to drive me out at any cost. And as if that were not enough, Geschiedenisnerd casually and with complete impunity once again preposterously accuses me of denying Nazi crimes (!). The question therefore remains: what can actually be done from the outside to save the Dutch Wikipedia? Marrakech (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I can understand Marrakech's response, but everyone: let's try and not import the full dispute to Meta-wiki. This topic is a request for clarification of the UCoC, not an appeal about the individual block(s). Ciell (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself: this page is an appropriate place to ask for a UCoC interpretation (one of the things the U4C can do under our charter). However, U4C discussion of specific blocks/appeals/etc need to happen via a case. But ideally those specific things are handled instead by the Dutch Wikipedia community with-out the U4C. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- That may be true, but U4C did not provide an answer on the initial question. BTW, if you start with the wrong question, you get the wrong answer, or none.--Wickey (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
@Ciell: The U4C has responded via a publicly announced motion. Please see Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Response to interpretation request of article 3 for the passed motion. On behalf of the U4C, EggRoll97 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
A daily reality
What is currently unfolding on this page serves as a textbook, real-time illustration of the exact behavioral dynamics that active editors and administrators on the Dutch Wikipedia have to endure on a daily basis.
Frankly, I feel deeply embarrassed that this is the impression being left behind by the Dutch Wikipedia community here on Meta, but unfortunately, it is the harsh reality of what we have to deal with day in and day out. Sadly, this situation is largely the result of a more lenient enforcement policy in the past, which has led these users to believe that anything goes and that there are no consequences for their actions.
While this page was originally utilized to request a formal interpretation of the UCoC, the ongoing thread unfortunately mirrors a daily operational challenge very familiar to our community. What has unfolded here, persisting despite clear reminders that this is not the appropriate venue for local block appeals or re-litigating individual sysop decisions, is emblematic of a broader behavioral pattern we routinely encounter. Managing discussions involving this small group of persistent users often entails:
- Relentless argumentation and stonewalling: When policies, behavioral guidelines, or administrative sanctions are applied, these users routinely engage in exhaustive, circular semantic debates rather than acknowledging community standards. Even when explicitly corrected or directed to guidelines, they persist indefinitely, wearing down volunteer bandwidth.
- Extraction of historical quotes out of context: They frequently dig up and misrepresent statements made by other users, sometimes dating back years, pulling them entirely out of context to construct manufactured narratives or grievances.
- Thread hijacking and parasitic interventions: They constantly parasitize discussions across the project. Even when they were never originally involved in a topic, they appear out of nowhere within minutes to disrupt conversations they have no stake in, derailing the actual subject matter. This is even worse when the subject is a block. Even here on Meta, when one of our sysops asks for an interpretation, she opened a can of these users... Like how?
- Distraction and deflection: They actively disrupt discussions by shifting the focus away from the core problem or topic. Depending on how a conversation is progressing, they dynamically pivot between policy/behavior and content/opinions as a lightning rod. For instance, when disruptive behavior is addressed, they suddenly force the conversation onto gender issues. Conversely, when gender issues are being discussed, they pivot back to attacking behavior, ensuring the dialogue remains permanently gridlocked. This is not limited to gender issues, but any sensitive subject or sometimes even very straightforward topics.
- Disregard for boundaries: As demonstrated clearly in this thread despite multiple reminders, these users routinely ignore established guidelines regarding appropriate venues, using this talk page to air local grievances and re-litigate individual administrative actions. Pointing them to the right place is pointless, because they have no interest in having this conversation in the right place. They will keep going until the possibility is taken away from them here as well. A wild guess is that they will then continue on a talk page on Commons or another language version...
- Weaponization of process and community fatigue: Content discussions are regularly derailed by persistent dogmatism and procedural gaming. This sustained pattern of behavior places a disproportionate and exhausting burden on active editors and administrators trying to maintain a constructive environment.
What you see here is a clear snapshot of how a small group of disruptive users systematically operates across our project. The community will not tolerate this for much longer I'm afraid. Many valued users (and I'm not talking about 1 or 2) have already left temporarily or definitively. A solution must be found for this, preferably sooner than later. --ContextCreator (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- ContextCreator’s text is remarkable mainly for what it carefully avoids: a single concrete example. He accuses a “small group of persistent users” of a long list of serious behavioural offences: relentless stonewalling, extracting historical quotes out of context, thread hijacking, distraction and deflection, disregard for boundaries, weaponization of process, and “persistent dogmatism and procedural gaming.” These are grave claims. Yet not one of them is supported by a diff, a timestamp, a specific discussion, or even a vague reference to an identifiable incident.
- Take just two examples:
- “They frequently dig up and misrepresent statements made by other users, sometimes dating back years.”
- I recently pointed out the irony of being blocked for a measured remark about biological sex and gender by the same administrator (that is: ContextCreator) who only a couple of years earlier referred to people updating celebrities’ pronouns after a public transition as ‘gender terrorists’. But that was one time only and did not misrepresent his statement. So what does he mean? Which statements? Whose? In which discussions? How often is “frequently”? Without specifics this remains an unfalsifiable smear.
- “Content discussions are regularly derailed by persistent dogmatism and procedural gaming.”
- Which content discussions? Which pages? What exactly constitutes the “dogmatism”? Why is it that only the viewpoints of those he opposes are labelled dogmatic, while his own firmly held positions on the same subjects are treated as neutral community standards?
- This pattern is consistent. When specific, documented cases of administrative overreach or selective enforcement are raised (with diffs and context), the response is a sweeping, evidence-free character sketch of an unnamed group. The more detailed and concrete the criticism becomes, the more abstract and collective the counter-accusation grows. Labelling disagreement as “dogmatism” while refusing to substantiate one’s own claims is not moderation. When an admin grossly misuses the UCoC to block a user simply because he disagrees with that user’s views, and when he repeatedly responds to specific, documented criticism with vague, collective accusations (“a small group of users does X, Y and Z”) instead of addressing the actual evidence presented, that pattern itself becomes a reason to examine whether that person should continue to hold administrative tools. Marrakech (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
@All, I think we have already and repeatedly mentioned that the post opener requested an interpretation and we replied, you can discuss locally how to make use of our reply. This page is not the right venue to export local disputes. If you want to file a case with the U4C please use the ways defined in this page: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases, if there is a need for a private request please contact us in the ways described here but please stop using U4C pages for discussions and disputes which really should be dealt with locally, kindly consider this a warning. --Civvì (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
How to handle requests for interpretation
Hello, I would suggest that requests for interpretation such as the above should go to Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases instead of being initiated and litigated on this talk page. Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 18:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Create a special page would be a better idea.--Wickey (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Civvì: a few suggestions: 1. would the U4C please develop a better way of handling interpretation requests? 2. Given that U4C members are not necessarily Meta admins, and non-Meta admins including U4C members who aren't Meta admins don't have much authority to police discussions on Meta such as the above, I suggest that the U4C write a open-ended general request to Meta admins asking them to use their local authority to moderate, such as by redirecting and/or closing, discussions such as the above which would be better placed in a different location, and also if necessary to use their local authority to handle conduct problems in similar discussions on Meta including in the scope of discussions with the U4C. 3. In a specific circumstance where any U4C member has concerns regarding local conduct in Meta, including regarding UCoC-related discussions, the U4C member may simply make a request on Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat to ask a local Meta admin to get involved rather than trying to handle an issue themselves which they don't have local authority to address, and I suggest that the U4C specifically document this option in its standard procedures. Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 15:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The U4C has already been discussing two/three and I'm sure we'll take your feedback on board as those discussions continue. But all U4C members are given limited meta admin in order to do U4C work, so that part of the suggestion is incorrect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: it appears from Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements/2024/User rights that U4C members' limited adminship is "to manage the U4C pages locally". I would not interpret this as granting local conduct policing authority to U4C members, whether on or off U4C project pages on Meta, as I interpret page management as being a technical and project organization function, and not a conduct policing function. Has the U4C made some request on Meta for the community to grant its members local policing authority on pages in the U4C project's scope? If not then of course the U4C may make that request to the community, and/or follow my suggestions 2 and 3 above which I would prefer for better separation of duties and to decrease the potential entanglement of sitting U4C members who may hear an appeal from local conduct issues on Meta including on U4C project pages.
- The U4C has already been discussing two/three and I'm sure we'll take your feedback on board as those discussions continue. But all U4C members are given limited meta admin in order to do U4C work, so that part of the suggestion is incorrect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- My interpretation seems consistent with Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter section 3.7, which reads in part: "The Committee can take all measures it deems appropriate and proportionate to adhere to its mandate and address systemic failures to adequately enforce the UCoC in line with the enforcement guideline and this policy." A typical conduct problem on the U4C's pages on Meta probably would not be characterized as as local Meta admins systemically failing to enforce the U4C, and may not even be a U4C issue at all. For example, arguing about a matter that started on another wiki on this talk page would probably not be a U4C violation, but could constitute local disruptive behavior in the sense of having a discussion in the wrong place. Also, section 3.7 says "Any rights granted for U4C committee purposes must be used only for U4C actions, investigations and emergency cases unless they have other administrative rights granted from local or global processes." It is difficult for me to interpret these provisions as authorizing U4C effectively to take over local policing authority on U4C pages from Meta admins, who have primary local jurisdiction on Meta. ↠Pine (✉) 19:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've been thinking more about this. Here are two more options to consider: 4. as a prerequisite for U4C membership, require that a candidate is already a full Meta admin and/or a steward, preferably with experience in the past year of 100 or more logged local admin actions on Meta. This option 4 isn't my preferred option because there is a benefit to separating duties between U4C actions and local administrative actions including on Meta pages which are in the U4C's project scope, but a benefit would be that it is a way to require U4C candidates to already have legitimacy on Meta and preferably also have hands-on administrative experience on Meta. 5. Request that a few fully commissioned Meta admins become clerks (see for a similar functional example en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks) for the U4C with the understanding that their handling of conduct matters on pages in the U4C scope derives entirely from their commissions as Meta admins rather than from their clerkship appointments from the U4C and the clerks aren't required to take directions from the U4C for local conduct matters including on U4C pages, and the clerkship appointments are effectively specializations within the Meta admin role. This option preserves the separation of duties between local admin actions and U4C actions, doesn't require rewriting Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter section 3.7 or stretching its meaning to allow the U4C to take actions on Meta which relate to Meta local conduct, and doesn't require U4C appointees to request extending their limited admin permissions to include conduct matters, although of course U4C members may request Meta local admin membership and may want to do so before or during their U4C terms, and I would encourage U4C members to do this before running for the U4C so that they gain global experience and Meta local admin experience, and in case such membership is convenient during their U4C terms. ↠Pine (✉) 04:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- @User:Pine I am not sure to understand what issue we are trying to address here. So far the relation with both stewards and Meta admins worked well, considering that the U4C is(was) a newcomer in a functioning project I think we found a good balance and ways to coexist constructively. Do we really need to make something complicate when there is no reason (at least, I personally see no reason) to do it? As concerns the requirement, this year we already added "hold or have held administrator or other extended rights (e.g. CU, Arb) on at least one public Wikimedia Foundation project or steward or global sysop rights for a period of at least three months." to the election requirements, I do not understand what kind of additional skills would being Meta admin add to the toolset needed? --Civvì (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Civvì thanks, that is a good question regarding whether these options would be more work than they are worth. I'm interested in having a clear separation of duties between the Meta admins and the U4C. In my view, this separation of duties has the benefit of making it easier to appeal local Meta admin actions to the U4C if the U4C is never involved in primary local enforcement on Meta, including on U4C pages. Additionally, the separation of duties makes clear that election to the U4C does not grant any primary enforcement authority on Meta, including on U4C pages. Option 5 has the additional benefit of hopefully bringing in some help to the U4C regarding routine matters that the clerks could handle, similar to how clerks assist the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Finally, while I view requiring 3 months of extended rights as a good start, I would strongly prefer that candidates have experience on a global project such as Meta or Commons and have at least 100 logged admin actions on that global project. Hopefully that makes sense. I'm certainly open to discussion regarding options. ↠Pine (✉) 06:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- @User:Pine so far we have used the admin bits on Meta only to protect case pages when the case is closed, I don't think that this is something controversial or that we should bother "real" Meta admins with this kind of requests. Currently the eligibility requirements are the same as stewards, personally I don't think we need to further restrict the number of possible candidates, especially with the committee’s long-term sustainability in mind (I think only one or two current members would be in the U4C with those requirements). But feel free to make this suggestions for the next review of the charter. Thank you. --Civvì (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Pine after some discussion we have added instructions on how to request an interpretation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: okay. I think this may lead to repeats of the problem above where a request for interpretation here becomes a lengthy discussion of facts instead of the request for interpretation. I would suggest instead having individualized and structured pages, similar to case pages, for requests for interpretation. Then any arguments or extended discussion about the facts related to the request for interpretation should happen there instead of on this more general talk page. Additionally, if the request for interpretation morphs into a full case, changing the request for interpretation page into a case page should be relatively easy provided that the interpretation request page and case page have similar formats. ↠Pine (✉) 19:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- We ultimately decided against a separate structure. For me, I wanted to ensure that we could - as the charter explicitly permits - offer both formal and informal interpretation. I also, admittedly, didn't want to set up an infrastructure that would really encourage such requests. After all, the enforcement guidelines make clear that as much as possible enforcement and UCoC should be done locally and in a decentralized manner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Okay. We will see how this works going forward. Thanks for explaining, Barkeep49. ↠Pine (✉) 21:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- We ultimately decided against a separate structure. For me, I wanted to ensure that we could - as the charter explicitly permits - offer both formal and informal interpretation. I also, admittedly, didn't want to set up an infrastructure that would really encourage such requests. After all, the enforcement guidelines make clear that as much as possible enforcement and UCoC should be done locally and in a decentralized manner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: okay. I think this may lead to repeats of the problem above where a request for interpretation here becomes a lengthy discussion of facts instead of the request for interpretation. I would suggest instead having individualized and structured pages, similar to case pages, for requests for interpretation. Then any arguments or extended discussion about the facts related to the request for interpretation should happen there instead of on this more general talk page. Additionally, if the request for interpretation morphs into a full case, changing the request for interpretation page into a case page should be relatively easy provided that the interpretation request page and case page have similar formats. ↠Pine (✉) 19:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)