Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee

< Talk:Universal Code of Conduct
Latest comment: 5 days ago by Soni in topic Talk page confusions
Learn more about this page

This page is for discussions related toUniversal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee.

  Please remember to:

  Discussion navigation:


Concern Regarding Blanket IP Block on Arabic Wikipedia

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago43 comments21 people in discussion

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding a recent decision on Arabic Wikipedia to block all IP users from editing or contributing to Wikipedia namespace discussion pages, including user talk pages, forcing us to create an account which is a blatant violation of UCoC, trust, and the spirit of contribution, and clear discrimination against IP users. (LINK) The stated reason for this blanket block is to prevent vandalism. However, this action appears to have been implemented in response to a single instance of a very polite inquiry made by an IP user on another user's talk page LINK LINK.

This inquiry was, in no way, vandalism. Despite this, the user who received the inquiry, who is reportedly close to Arabic Wikipedia administrator/s, seems to have interpreted it as such. Subsequently, their user talk page was protected without their explicit request. Following this, a decision was made to block all IP users from editing or participating in discussions within the Wikipedia & Users namespaces. This blanket block has a significant and negative impact on IP users who wish to contribute constructively to discussions, offer diverse perspectives, or even communicate on their own user talk pages. It effectively silences a large group of potential contributors (who are a big part of what built this encyclopedia) and creates a discriminatory environment based solely on their IP address. This measure seems disproportionate to the alleged issue and punishes all IP users for the actions (or perceived actions) related to a single, non-vandalistic inquiry.

Furthermore, the decision to implement this widespread block appears to have been made by an individual or a small group of administrators, raising concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process. The perceived close relationship between the user who raised the initial concern and the administrators who took action further exacerbates these concerns and suggests a potential bias in the decision-making process.

This situation appears to contradict the principles of UCoC principles. By broadly silencing IP users, Arabic Wikipedia is creating an unwelcoming environment and hindering the ability of diverse voices to contribute to the community's discussions. I respectfully request that the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee investigate this situation on Arabic Wikipedia. I believe this blanket IP block is an overreach, lacks proper justification based on actual vandalism, and undermines the collaborative spirit and inclusivity that Wikipedia should uphold. I hope the committee will consider recommending a review of this decision and a more equitable approach to addressing any genuine instances of vandalism. (An IP user) -- 197.206.185.12 11:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

FYI this is w:ar:Special:Abusefilter/76 (private) - public reason is: w:ar:MediaWiki:Blackout-disallowed. — xaosflux Talk 12:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@0xDeadbeef, @Ajraddatz, @Barkeep49, @Civvì, @Ghilt, @Luke081515, @Superpes15. 41.104.99.221 17:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The reason given states that it is a temporary disallowance of IP editing due to vandalism. Please discuss this locally first. --Ghilt (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ghilt How are IP users supposed to "discuss" anything if they're not even allowed to talk? You can't lock the doors and then tell people to come inside and negotiate. -- 41.201.66.47 12:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
So you're saying that it's a great idea to punish all IP users because one person is accused of vandalism, according to what Ibrahim.ID is claiming? So much for collective punishment? Are we a collective mind? What did the rest of us do to deserve this? Let's not pretend IP users are second-class citizens. Many IP contributors helped build Wikipedia when it was still the wild west of the internet. Shutting them out is not only discriminatory, it's a slap in the face to the open nature of the platform. The UCoC exists specifically to protect against this kind of exclusionary behavior. If Arab Wikipedia starts acting like a walled garden, it's just another elitist forum, not a global knowledge resource. -- 41.201.66.47 13:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
you can temporarily use an account to discuss. As for the second edit: please don't interpret things into my post that I didn't write. Ghilt (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ghilt You're suggesting that I have to temporarily create an account to participate in a discussion about the unfair blocking of IP users, which kind of defeats the whole point of the protest. The issue isn't that I can't register, it's that I shouldn't be forced to, especially when IP editing was a fundamental part of Wikipedia's openness for over two decades now!
Also, saying discuss locally first while the entire Arab Wikipedia and User namespaces discussion pages are completely off limits makes it impossible. That's not a good faith suggestion, that's a Catch-22.
As for your other comment: nobody is putting words in your mouth. We're pointing out the implications and real world effects of what's happening, and how it contradicts the UCoC emphasis on inclusiveness, fairness, and non discrimination.
What we're asking for is basic, review the situation with transparency on how and why this decision was made and how can IP users actually participate without being told to stop being Ip users first. -- 41.201.66.47 16:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is only a catch-22 when you refuse to even temporarily use an account. 1) Who is 'we' and 2) when did I imply a 'great idea to punish', for example? And 3) is there a local ar.wp rule that guarantees IP editing? Ghilt (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ghilt It's exhausting to keep repeating this, but fine:
  1. We = IP users. You know that. Pretending otherwise is dodging.
  2. The point about "punishment" wasn't that you wrote those exact words. It's about the effect of the action you're defending: a broad, collective penalty for the actions of one user. If you can't acknowledge that, then what's the point of the UCoC?
  3. Your last point is the wildest: are you seriously suggesting that unless there's a local ar.wp rule guaranteeing IP editing, then blocking IP users is fair game? Because that would mean any local wiki can ignore the UCoC as long as they say it's a rule. That makes the entire concept of global standards meaningless.
The Coordinating Committee's job isn't to rubber stamp admin actions, it's to uphold principles. If you can't see the issue here, maybe it's time to question if you're defending community health, or just admin convenience. -- 197.207.104.31 21:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
1) I think you currently lack the support to be talking for all IP users on their behalf. 2) nothing I wrote implies any form of 'great idea'. 3) most importantly: we will discuss whether we see temporarily disallowing IP editing as a UCoC violation and if so, if it is a justifiable temporary measure to reduce vandalism. Here is the form: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases. Ghilt (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ghilt
1. Seriously? What kind of elitist gatekeeping is that? So now IP users need to elect a spokesperson or run a survey before saying we're being silenced? You blocked IP users from even talking, and now you're telling me I need broad community support to point out that IP users were blocked? You realize how circular and silencing that is, right? Where exactly are IP userss supposed to organize and gain support when you locked all the doors?
2. You keep nitpicking while ignoring the core argument that a blanket punishment was issued, and you're defending it. That is the message, no matter how it's worded.
3. If the Committee needs to discuss whether excluding an entire group from participation violates inclusiveness, then maybe it's time to ask whether the UCoC has any actual teeth or just exists for show. If you're open to real discussion, let IPs speak. If not, just say you're fine with silence and don't pretend it's temporary fairness. -- 197.207.104.31 22:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you want us to discuss something please make a formal request of us at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases. My biggest question with this is what the actual violation of the UCoC this is because it's not clear to me. This may be an issue that would either need to be discussed locally or else handled by the global community through an RfC. But there could be elements of the UCoC I'm not fully considering. I look forward to reading these thoughts when a case has been filed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Barkeep49 all Arab Wikipedia and User namespaces DISCUSSION pages are off limits to IP users, you can't discuss on a user talk page, you can't discuss on any wikipedia discussion page, IP users now on Arab Wikipedia are only allowed to contributte to articles, not even discuss anything about articles, suggest news, or report a problems. Discussing it locally is far far away from that, it's like kicking someone outside, closing the door, then telling it to come and talk inside.
I get you're trying to keep things tidy, but blocking all IP users is a pretty extreme move. It's a clear case of abuse of power (3.2). This is about punishing an entire group of potential contributors based on the technicality of being an IP users, which doesn't really solve any issues, it just shuts down legitimate edits.
Where exactly is the vandalism, there's no reason to block all IP users just because of their status and linking them to vandalism because of the actions of one user that Ibrahim.ID is claiming, we're not even sure if it's vandalism or not. Moderation should be focused on behavior, not penalizing a whole category of users, just ban the user who did vandalism, they have been banning IP users for any comment that doesn't align with their personal opinions, so what? Any IP user that commits vandalism, we block all others until nobody knows? Should we block every IP user because one might act inappropriately?
Not everything requires a formal case, sometimes it's just about enforcing the UCoC. Right now, the main issue here is enforcing fair and consistent guidelines, but it feels like some members of the committee are being too lenient with certain admins on Arab Wiki, letting them take actions that don't align with the broader rules.
Thanks. -- 197.207.104.31 23:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The enforcement of the UCOC is a shared responsibility across projects, affiliates, etc. We are, as the name says, a coordinating committee for enforcement and can, in some circumstances, do our own enforcement. Because of our responsibilities, and because in many cases we're a "last resort" the way to ask for us to enforce is through a case request. You can likely use much of what you've already written here to file it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Look, I get that you're pointing me to the formal case system, but here's the problem, most IP users aren't even aware of Meta cases. They're blocked from every Arab Wikipedia discussion space and can't even see the process meant to protect them. You expect community input, but you've cut off the community. When I open a case, who will respond? A bunch of Arab Wiki admins (usually the same fellas, the same pattern) jumping in to back each other up because they get notified, they know the system, and they can post freely. The affected users? Silenced and invisible. The idea that I "lack support" (like Ghilt claimed) to speak for IP users ignores the fact that those users have been excluded from the conversation entirely. This isn't a matter of opening a case, it's a matter of structural silencing, and UCoC enforcement shouldn't require victims to fight with one hand tied behind their back. If that doesn't concern the committee, then it's not just about enforcement, it's about priorities, and that's absolutely discrimination as per 3.3 -- 41.108.170.200 10:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just a reminder, it's been 30 days a total month since one person (Ibrahim.ID) applied the filter, a total month! this falls under so many points of the UCoC to the point that I'm in no mood to state them all again and again and again, this is a total discrimination against IP users, a group of users who built this foundation! 105.235.131.75 14:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
And can anyone explain to us how long is temporary? link (machine translation), can you please coordinate? we can't deal with (locally) as per filter block imposed on ALL IP users. 105.235.131.75 14:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Barkeep49, @Ghilt, It's been two months since the filter was still applied. This is pure discrimination against IPs, this is pure gatekeeping, this is pure abuse of power, this is absolutely ridiculous. -- 41.104.114.64 20:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Any IP editor is welcome to file a case with us. That's the way to get us to consider this problem (including what the UCoC violation is). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
What are you expecting from opening a case? -- 105.103.101.233 12:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Barkeep49 Do you know why we don't want to open a case? because you are not being neutral, and you always end up declining the case because it's against admins, not because it's legit. It's been months and we are not even able to contribute in the articles namespace! -- 41.109.2.176 18:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Once again, you're claiming that administrators are "punishing" people? Blocking on Wikipedia is never used as a form of punishment. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 06:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
go check what happened before backing your guys 197.205.140.6 06:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
gaslighting at it's best, plus you are a newbie I'm here since 2005
Youre parroting the usual admin script without even looking into what happened. you back your own no matter what, facts be damned. 197.205.140.6 06:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
And don't worry, they'll back you up too and they will block IPs from even editing this page if anyone dares criticize. You do look nice in pictures, though good PR always helps as it seems. wanna block? block, that's the best you can do. 197.205.140.6 06:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
In the end, it doesn't change the fact that IP users built this Wiki, we exist forever. cya in the tyrants section. 197.205.140.6 06:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
A bunch of damned oppressive tyrants and a clique of domineering gatekeepers who can't handle criticism and don't know the meaning of justice. - - 197.205.140.6 06:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
You will see the consequences of DIV. - - 197.205.140.6 06:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not commenting on this particular case because it seem different to me, I just pointed to the fact that the WMF has allowed local communities (and that usually means active, registered users) to decide for their local project to disallow IP editing completely (see studies here). This IP block is still active on Portuguese Wikipedia. With this in mind, a) an IP block is not abusive by itself, b) it can be implemented by community consensus, c) according to WMF it doesn't contradict Wikimedia's core principlies. Certainly, you can put all of these into question, also about the validity of the Arab case (e.g., is there community consensus? does it already exist when there is no local complaint about this admin activity? when and how should this find community consensus, for example through a local RfC where IPs would also be excluded from voting, I think and so on). But these should be the facts that should be taken into concern, locally first I think. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the insight which I personally am aware of, and as you pointed out, this case is different. Regards. -- 197.205.148.168 19:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Are these IPs here from the same person? – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 06:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
They are from different people, some of them are from Mars, and Pluto. 197.207.112.139 10:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

197etc. you are free to express your disappointment, but please do so without insulting or mocking others. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We IPs are already mocked, insulted, and gatekeeped, how does it feel. - - 197.207.112.139 13:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
more than 90 days of total IP block on Arabic Wikipedia, what do you expect IPs to feel like? we are treated like trash, please don't gaslight me with "It's their decision", it's a decision of ONE admin (Ibrahim.ID), he wants to prove to us that he can block IPs since we can restart routers to get a new IP, yes sometimes it's a concern, but it's not of his goddamn business, that's for Wikimedia to determine!
Portuguese Wiki blocked IPs based on their community consensus, where is the Arabic Wiki concensus?
You are U4C you can force the charter on That Ibrahim.ID (NO CASE NEEDED!). 197.207.112.139 14:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Log in and make your point on arwiki then. They are soon going to be rolling out temporary accounts anyway. Why are you complaining here, when this has very little to do with code of conduct. BRP ever 16:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Re-READ the whole conversation above PLEASE. 41.104.10.169 20:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you think I'm complaining here while I do have the choice to? Do us a favor please since you are interested, go and try to contribute to ArWiki without an account. Just try it. You will not even understand why the heck the abuse filter is being so gatekeeping. 41.104.10.169 20:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
What Ibrahim.ID must do is to get community consensus about the block. I talked to some users, even admins, and they were not even aware that such a global IP block is in action, Ibrahim.ID needs to get consensus. Does the Arabic Wikipedia community want to block IP users like Portuguese Wikipedia did? and I am even predicting that they are going to vote in favor (since a bunch of those admins always back each other), but at least get consensus first, not just because you are an admin and you didn't like what a user expressed, so you go full rage mode and punish all IPs. You will be amazed by how much gatekeeping the Arabic Wikipedia is doing. Do you know that in the English Wikipedia any user can freely contribute even if it's vandalism? THEN the edit gets reverted, WHILE in the Arabic Wikipedia the contribution never passes unless an editor or an admin approves it. And guess what? it's been for years WITHOUT community consensus.
We are sick of these (some bunch of Arabic admins) behaviors that contradict the whole (Free Encyclopedia) core goal that got inspiration from the GNU openness for the freedom to share, modify, and contribute, and the UCoC standards. 41.104.10.169 21:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you are expecting people to just do things based on your comments here, this is just a waste of time. If the users or those admins you talked with think these blocks are unnecessary why do they not discuss it locally? BRP ever 21:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Getting consensus is not based on my comment. It's a community-based vote.⁣ I think you agree with me?
The admins that I talked to are still talking to the other one (I can tell you so much about the hostility going on there between them. you can check their daily clashes if you want). Which is so unfortunate coming from a group of users (admins) supposed to be an example for the users. 41.105.219.174 21:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The bottom line, if they want to do like the Portuguese Wiki they need consensus they need community vote (see link and link). If the community decides so? I will accept the decision even if I don't agree with it. But no, oh dear, the admin Ibrahim.ID thinks it's his forum he does it without the need to others (actually I even feel sorry for the rest of the community for being ignored for taking such an action without their consensus). People did serious studies and Dear Mr Ibrahim.ID goes and slams those studies with a single my own forum slapping IPs for not liking what one IP says and challenges my powers. 41.105.219.174 21:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Out of date

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The page says "Please note: No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki.", but per the success of proposal D, this is no longer the case. I'm not super familiar with editing translated pages so I'll hold off fixing it myself, but the page should probably be updated to reflect the change. Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I just removed that part. --Civvì (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Did I miss an announcement about the result of the vote? — xaosflux Talk 19:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Xaosflux we definitely could improve our communications about that. Here are the results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Perhaps link to the results in the header (or on the the page that header sends you to)? — xaosflux Talk 20:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Open dispute resolution policy design group

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I am working with a team centered at University of Colorado Boulder on building better governance protocols for conflict resolution. I want to share this Zotero folder to anyone interested - we are collecting texts on policy resolution systems, particularly coming from restorative justice and transformative justice frameworks. https://www.zotero.org/groups/5740900/open_dispute_resolution_policy_design_group/library This is a public link to view the Zotero folders. Hexatekin (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Hexatekin: sorry for the delay, we somehow missed the message. I had a quick look and there are several interesting things that deserve a deeper reading, thank you very much! --Civvì (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am so glad to hear that someone is checking out these resources we've been compiling, as I am very enthusiastic about sharing knowledge with others about how we can all learn from existing work and practices around conflict resolution. I will continue to improve this resource, and will look out for opportunities to build better bibliographies and references on articles related to these subjects also! Hexatekin (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi Hexatekin, I wanted to say that this Zotero folder is a great resource. I've been looking through the collections, and the focus on restorative and transformative justice frameworks is exactly what we need for thoughtful conflict resolution design. I'm especially interested in some of the less conventional entries, like the one on 'Woman as Caretaker: An Archetype That Supports Patriarchal Militarism.' It really shows the larger systemic issues at play beyond just procedural resolution. Thanks again for sharing. I look forward to seeing how this resource continues to grow! -- 105.103.101.233 12:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hexatakin (talk) 136.158.62.37 20:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Snaevar's treatment of SD0001

edit
Latest comment: 29 days ago12 comments10 people in discussion

Hey there. I notice that Snævar is on U4C probation. (Link to motion.) I was just wondering if casting aspersions against SD0001 violates this probation?

A series of accusations have been leveled against SD0001 these last few days and I do not see much in the way of evidence. These are at best social gaffes, and at worst harassment. For someone that is on probation (and who I would assume would as a result be on their best behavior), this behavior is disappointing. I just wanted to get a second opinion on this disruptive behavior that is now spilling over into the technical spaces where I enjoy volunteering (SecurePoll coding). Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Snævar you should start explaining your actions and take part in the discussion you started. Ghilt (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Novem Linguae, just a note that there is an existing user conduct review process for technical spaces. See mw:Code of Conduct/Committee for information on that process. — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Bumping this up, I'd still love to hear any opinion/comment from the committee side. A09|(pogovor) 08:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
+1 Sohom (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I guess they are confusing SD0001 with SHB2000 (the later got blocked by Snaevar on iswiki and asked some questions during the U4C election). Johannnes89 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I suspect this is highly likely the case since SD0001 hasn't asked any questions. //shb (t • c) 11:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd still atleast like the U4C to clarify it's jurisdiction with mw:Code of Conduct/Committee. Could U4C overturn a mw:Code of Conduct/Committee action ?
Additionally, I want to note for posterity that accusing a user of misusing their +2 on mediawiki/* is a serious allegation in technical spaces is analogous to alleging administrator misconduct on a large content wiki, but with arguably more associated risks. "They misidentified the person" is a very extremely poor response in that context. To give a parallel example, if I suddenly publicly accused another admin of being a paid editor with bogus evidence, I imagine there would be immediate calls for my en:WP:RECALL on enwiki. The silence from Snævar in particular and the U4C committee in general is somewhat puzzling and disheartening as a technical volunteer. Sohom (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Sohom Datta, sorry I have been juggling between lot of things today but I will quote the charter in response to your question Except in instances of systemic failures, the U4C will not have jurisdiction to enforce the UCoC when a high-level decision-making body is able to (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, Technical Code of Conduct committee, Stewards), warranting effective self-governance.
U4C has been somewhat aware of the 2nd part, if some members have not been aware, I will try and reach out to them to let them know. Snævar has been on probation since the last case, and there has been almost no response or follow up from them. I, too, think this has become quite problematic. Thanks, BRP ever 14:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the first part, that makes sense! For the second, thanks for taking a look! Sohom (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
To give a parallel example, if I suddenly publicly accused another admin of being a paid editor with bogus evidence In fact that exact instance is what led to Jimbo losing his admin status on enwiki. It is a very serious claim and should be treated as such.
If the U4C does not hold jurisdiction, they should specify so clearly. Otherwise claims of misconduct in U4C elections + the past "U4C probation" both lead me to believe it should be under U4C jurisdiction Soni (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, while I do not believe we can issue sanctions on Phabricator, it is possible in my opinion that the U4C is able to take actions based on behavior outside of our jurisdiction if it is related to a case where we do have jurisdiction. The U4C is still discussing this. dbeef (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unjust block complaint for PERLA.NEGRA account

edit
Latest comment: 24 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello U4C Committee and Wikimedia Stewards, I am PERLA.NEGRA on Turkish Wikipedia. I have been unjustly blocked for 27 days due to an IP range block applied by user Dr. Coal. I only use this single account and have never engaged in sockpuppetry. The block was applied without concrete evidence or prior warning, affecting innocent users like me unfairly. I kindly request an immediate review and removal of this block, as it violates Wikimedia’s principles of fair treatment and the Universal Code of Conduct. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, 

PERLA.NEGRA PERLA.NEGRA (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Talk page confusions

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Requesting the pages Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements and Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee be merged or otherwise interlinked better. They seem to be serving pretty much the same purpose, but it's hard to find which contains what discussion.

Similarly, Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Non-voting members does not exist, and discussion of that happens de-facto at the announcement page. It should be redirected accordingly. Soni (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee&oldid=29155187"
Return to "Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee" page.