Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Questions

Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

• Coordinating Committee (U4C)
• U4C Announcements
• Training modules
• Cases
• Elections

←2024 Special Election

2024 Special Election Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election (Questions)

Eligible voters can leave comments about the candidates and ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 (two) relevant questions per candidate (in total; i.e. all questions a candidate needs to answer are counted), and keep them as concise and relevant as possible. Please limit the length of comments to max. 250 words. Voters can post comments and questions now; candidates will be asked to engage with questions during the Question period. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

Questions for all candidates

• Q1: An insufficient number of candidates were elected in the last election. The U4C is the organizer of this election. As a future member of the U4C, what would you change about the U4C election process so that this situation does not repeat itself? (Presentation, access conditions, etc.) Nouill (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think it also depends on individuals who voted as I see there were sufficient candidates on initial election from all regions, but some regional candidates didn't get enough support, so conducting election for specific regions separately could be useful and there is need for more outreach to increase awareness in respective regions from local charter and user group. ~aanzx ^✉ _© 04:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• In the last election, we had a sufficient number of candidates from all regions, but some didn't receive enough votes. Therefore, I propose changing the qualification criteria from “The candidate must have 60% or higher of votes as calculated by support/(support + oppose)” to “The candidate must have 50% or higher of votes as calculated by support/(support + oppose).” or we could consider implementing another voting method that is not so complicated. Also, extending the campaign duration would allow candidates more time to reach out to voters and present their platforms effectively. Dera xoxo (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what I would want to change at this point - after the last election, I was concerned that the complexity of the composition of the committee was possibly discouraging experienced/qualified people from running, but seeing the candidate field this election I am not sure anymore. My personal instincts would still be to reduce some of that complexity - cut a few seats from the committee, relax the homewiki requirements, maybe rework the regional seats model to have a few reserved seats for those from underserved areas rather than a dedicated seat for each region, etc. But ultimately I don't think that the U4C should decide on this alone; I think this should be a conversation with the community before the next election, once we have had time to review and reflect on the results of this election, and my objective in such a discussion would be to encourage the sharing of views and to implement what the community decides. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Per Ajraddatz. Trying to achieve diversity is an important goal, but if it leads to a situation where the terms perhaps are not understood at first reading by the average user, it's perhaps too complex and doesn't reach the required attention. I'd be in favor of a slightly reduced complexity. I have no specific suggestion at this time. Krd 09:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think the first election is a bit too complex and was mandated to elect 16 members, plus the home wiki rule should only apply to cal not regional seats. This is the first time problem. Another problem that seems to have fixed is for how many questions to candidates are just not sorted, which is fixed in this case. But a long review is definitely needed as there are issues that have been discovered in this (and last) election. 1233 （T / C） 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• In order to prevent this type of occurrence, I would suggest a different approach in the voting system where voters are not just limited to voting the people they may know but also, those they know not but can access their activities and contributions on their individual User pages. This is because, the Wikimedia ecosystem is quite a large one made up of people from different regions, so structuring the voting system in a way that voters can vote only people they know is not quite encouraging. Secondly, I would suggest an equity approach rather than equality approach. The equality approach may not be suitable in this system judging from the fact that there are more regions that are more vast both in population and contribution and are at advantage of getting more eligible voters compared to the other regions. Thirdly, equity approach could be adopted whereby, a lesser percentage for specific candidates (who may fall within the scope of Upcoming but not fully advanced Wikimedians or Candidates from a specific region with lesser advantage) would be used to measure a candidate's success. This would give space for equitable representation on the UCoC seat. Finally, I would suggest more publicity - the just concluded election was not well publicized enough. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• As I've highlighted in one of my answers to the original election (and this is just my personal opinion), I would get rid of the regional seats (+ the homewiki rule) and make all community-at-large. This is because while I appreciate diversity, I consider the current system rather short-sighted and it wouldn't be good for the community or the member for someone to be implicitly called as a "diversity member", nor for them to have an easier/harder time getting elected just because of where they come from, or the homewiki they've selected (both of which have a degree of self-selection, and can lead to accusations of gaming the system in some cases as we've already seen with one candidate in this special election). There are other gripes I have (such as the use of SecurePoll - there was an issue in the original election where voters struggled to find out who was what in the voting panel due to the system randomly sorting the candidates); however, given the changes made between the original election and this special election, I'd like to see how that goes before commenting further. Leaderboard (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Well, the first U4C election was complicated because there were 16 seats to fill at one time, it was a première for this international election for a specialized Committee for which we had no former experience, there was also a never used system of dual distribution of regional and community-at-large seats. One additional criteria was the homewiki rule. All this together made this election complicated and I really appreciate that people took the time to candidate and vote. I'm also aware that the Election Committee made a huge work.

There is a lot of things we can improve for this U4C.

But there is one thing that I'll suggest if I'm elected : I'll suggest to remove the criteria of the homewiki rule.

As you cannot change your home-wiki, many people couldn't run easily, especially if their home-wiki was the English Wikipedia for example.

Lifting the homewiki rule will make it easier for motivated and skilled people to candidate for the next by-elections of this specialized Committee of the U4C. So it should also give more chances for people to be elected. Waltercolor (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Even though we had enough candidates in the last election, more than half of them did not get enough votes. To improve this, I propose lowering the minimum number of votes needed while maintaining a balance but certainly not compromising the quality of the candidates. The fact that some regions and wikis, including my home wiki (BN Wikipedia) and my region (SA), participate in Wikimedia decision-making far too little is a significant issue. Increasing outreach initiatives and maybe holding independent regional elections could raise candidates' awareness and engagement in these regions, guaranteeing more fair representation. Another challenge is that voters outside the region have little interest in regional candidates. For example, the results of past elections show that some candidates have a high number of neutral votes. I think this is not because those candidates are ineligible, but because voters in other regions have submitted the default vote for these candidates, the "neutral" option. This is because they are not interested in that regional seat. Another major reason was that voters in that candidate's region did not actively participate in the election. Candidates from all regions can gain more support or opposition by highlighting the unified character of the Wikimedia movement and encouraging voters to look at the candidates past actions and contributions. -- Aishik Rehman (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think it will not happen in this way (insufficient number) in the future, considering that this was the first time that the community had to elect 16 names at once. However, the change that I suggest is to try to increase the number of voters by working to raise awareness of the importance and necessity of this committee in our movement, and this importance will be confirmed when the committee solves some of the problems that will be presented to it during the current year. Also encourage qualified community members to run the election. NANöR (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you for this important question. As a future U4C member, here are the changes I would consider to improve the election process and avoid a situation where not enough candidates are elected:

Improved communication and awareness:

• Increase the visibility of the election through a more proactive and targeted communications campaign. Use various communication channels, including social networks, newsletters, and community forums to inform and motivate more community members to run.
• Organize information sessions and webinars to explain the roles and responsibilities of U4C members, and to answer questions from potential candidates.

Simplifying access conditions:

• Reassess and possibly simplify eligibility criteria to encourage more people to apply. Ensure that entry requirements are not too restrictive, while maintaining the necessary standards to guarantee qualified candidates.
• Offer mentoring programs or training sessions to help potential candidates better understand the electoral process and the expectations of the role.

Transparency of the electoral process:

• Make the nomination and selection process more transparent to build community trust and commitment. Publish clear guides on the electoral process, selection criteria, and key stages of the election.
• Encourage community feedback on the election process and integrate this feedback to improve future elections.

Inclusion and diversity:

• Implement specific initiatives to encourage the participation of candidates from diverse regions, cultures and languages. This could include translations of election materials and awareness-raising sessions adapted to different cultural contexts.
• Ensure that the candidacy process is accessible and inclusive to all parts of the Wikimedia community, including under-represented groups.

--Azogbonon (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would definitely "promote" it more to all Wikipedias (possibly with some bot) because lots of times, people do not get involved with anything else other than their own Wikipedia so unless somehow through the bot we can send all the registered members the invitation to get involved with the committee, I do not see how in any other way will this be resolved considering we are talking about HUGE community. Боки ✉ 19:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• First up a brief apology for my tardiness to answering I have been in the field on some intensive work. With respect to changes, in other similar situations I have felt that it is advisable to let a formula play out over several elections before evaluating too much any failings, unless they are very obvious, as such I would not change much yet. That said as commented by others promoting the work of the U4C and that of its members on various wikis and associated platforms is a good step to more interest and quality among candidates. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• The first election was special in that 8 regional and 8 community seats were voted on. Future elections will be either 8 regional seats or 8 community seats. I think this will make it easier. But lets wait and see how the next regular election works. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Q2: What skills do you think are necessary to work in a multicultural online group dealing with difficult/stressful situations like U4C and what would be your weaknesses in this context? --Civvì (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Communication, adaptability, conflict resolution and minimal time commitment are essential for these roles. In difficult and stressful situations, users should avoid overexerting themselves if they are unsure how to handle such issues and seek assistance from other members if needed. My weakness would be grasping the context in languages/situations that i have limited knowledge/context, will seek assistance from other members while on such occasions.~aanzx ^✉ _© 06:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not completely sure if your question is about online groups in general or this U4C election especially. As of my experience as member of Wikimedia groups with limited member count, I think the most important skill, even, or especially, in the volunteer environment, is being available for discussions most of the time, so that the group as a whole is able to meet the expectations. I think is has be be called a weakness that I'm not too tolerant when important conclusions fail to be made just because of lack of participation of elected members. Krd 09:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Cross-cultural/multicultural approach management skill is very vital in this kind of situation and this could be achieved by ensuring that the UCoC seat is occupied by diverse individuals with different but unique perspective and orientation which would be of great use in managing difficult situations. However, incorporating individuals with diverse opinions and perspective also come with a price - LOTS OF DIFFERENCES - which could also be reworked on to be of great advantage to the team as it would provide the space to look into or explore the possible positivities that could come from a place/perspective one is ignorant of. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Availability and a collaborative attitude. I've worked on a number of committee-like bodies before, both within the Wikimedia movement (Ombs, electcom, steward) and in my professional life. The biggest barriers to effective committee work online are people who don't make the time to meaningfully contribute to committee business, and those who are focused on pushing their own viewpoint forward rather than discussing and working to compromise with the group so that the committee can accomplish its work. On the second point, my personal approach is to state my own opinion first, then read what others are saying, reflect (and comment) on the strengths/weaknesses of their argument and mine, and then ultimately work with the group towards implementing the consensus - even if I may not fully agree. I don't think that these two elements fundamentally change in a multicultural / diverse setting, but it becomes even more important to be willing to step back and consider the perspectives of others. Most of my wiki-work has been on multilingual projects like Wikidata or doing work at the global/cross-wiki level, so I don't think I have any particular weaknesses in this area, though I of course make occasional mistakes and am always sure to reflect on those. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think the ability to admit mistakes are important and necessary in a multicultural online groups, irrespective of whether it is related to stressful activities or not. People make mistakes, and without the abilitty to acknowledge and correct them, minor issues may explode into very large issues in a very short time, especially in a multicultural setting, as observed in some multicultural projects, such as the Chinese Wikipedia. Thus, I think the ability to admit and correct mistakes are crucial. I think my weakness in this context will not be the ability to admit mistakes but rather than the ability to spot mistakes, and because of that, I may rather be a bit passive in the first times, so as to avoid making mistakes at all, and observe the social fabric and interaction of the group first. 1233 （T / C） 04:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think the other candidates have answered this quite well, but personally I agree with Krd (and this is something I've said on my original election as well) think it's important to be as active as possible (to be more specific, the U4C depends on its members working together and it cannot function properly if members are not active enough to take part in the proceedings - after all it cannot vote if less than 8 members are active). Similarly, we've seen multiple otherwise-good members of the community get voted out or removed over a single mistake and hence it's important to stay calm and drop off if necessary (in other words, do nothing rather than make a scene). Regarding weakness: historically my communication skills have been (and still is) an area of development, but I hope that I've improved over the last few years. That does not mean that I won't make mistakes on that (or anything else), but that I try to make use of feedback to rectify any mistakes I make and improve as a result. Leaderboard (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• From my experience, as a drafter for 3 years, but also as a volunteer in another international network some years ago and my professional work in a multilingual environment, I believe that such multicultural online groups work well.

Concerning the difficult/stressful situations the U4C can have to deal with, I believe they are two sorts of difficult/stressful situations :

those directly related to the tasks of the U4C, especially handling complaints and appeals as specified in the Enforcement Guidelines.

those directly related to the dynamic of the group of the U4C.

So, concerning my weaknesses, I would say :

For the multicultural aspect :

One thing I have learned, concerning the policies of the U4C, was that I see things like the European and french person I am, and that other people may have a different vision and understanding of legal aspects. A friend of mine, a lawyer, explained me the different systems of judgement in different countries, and after that I understood better why people didn't appreciate some of my propositions or why I didn't appreciate theirs. This helped me a lot to understand the diversity of point of views and helped me to negotiate better in the discussions., find the best choices for the movement and end in a consensus.

For the difficult/stressful situations :

- If it's related to the tasks of the U4C, one point can be difficult for me : I like that discussions and workflows are structured. If it get's messy and people loose at lot of time with small points and don't hierarchize the tasks, I can get irritated.

- If it's related to the dynamic of the group, one point is difficult for me : there are few women in such Committees. If I'm alone, as a woman, in a group of men, I know that I experienced difficulties in similar situations. So what I do, generally, I say that my voice wasn't heard and I I give my opinion again. But people are human and sometimes, it simply doesn't work and it's just not possible to collaborate. There I would say : No one is expected to achieve the impossible. Waltercolor (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• To work effectively in a multicultural online group like U4C, especially in stressful situations, several key skills are essential. Skills like; problem solving skill/conflict management, interpersonal relationships skill, a good understanding of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), critical thinking skill, effective communication etc. My weakness would be understanding the context in languages or situations where I have limited knowledge. In such instances, I would seek assistance from other members and request for translation and translators. Dera xoxo (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• In addition to conflict management and communicating skills with individuals and groups from different backgrounds, I believe that committee members should have some soft skills such as critical thinking and problem solving and some other social skills such as integrity, trust building and decision making. I agree with some of the points made by colleagues in terms of active and efficient participation in the committee and devoting the time required for the committee tasks and I think this requires personal time management skills.

Our movement communities are so numerous and diverse that it may take a little longer to gain a deeper understanding of a situation if the issues and cases come from a community I have not dealt with directly before and this may affect at the beginning the speed of work. NANöR (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Firstly, intercultural communication is crucial to understanding and respecting the different perspectives and traditions of team members. Secondly, conflict resolution skills are needed to manage and mitigate tensions that may arise. Stress management and resilience enable you to remain calm and focused under pressure. Empathy and active listening foster an inclusive and respectful work environment. In addition, adaptability and flexibility enable rapid response to change and the unexpected. Finally, teamwork skills are essential to collaborate effectively with geographically dispersed members.
  As for my weaknesses in this context, I recognize that the language barrier could be a challenge, although I'm constantly striving to improve my language skills to better communicate with colleagues from different regions. In addition, although I am generally resilient, situations of prolonged stress can sometimes affect my time management. However, I am committed to working on these aspects to contribute positively to U4C.--Azogbonon (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Understanding different cultures is definitely a skill that needs to be present when it comes to different Wikipedias. My weakness is the fact that I have not been involved with bunch of those cultures but I am willing to work on that. Боки ✉ 19:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Most important characteristics for working in a multicultural environment is understanding and flexibility. Also as a committee one must have good working relationships with fellow committee members, the ability to speak with cultural empathy and awareness of the differences between cultural backgrounds and the subtle meanings within lngual backgrounds. I am a former Chair of the Ombuds Commission on WMF and still a member and as such we regularly must work with many wikis in multiple languages and recognise the cultural backgrounds of different regions. I have also served as Chair of a Board and am member of several International Committees, the latter also with a diversity of cultural backgrounds. In my work as a researcher I have worked in 22 countries permitting many interactions with different cultures. My greatest weakness would be that of course I will still see cutlures and languages that I am unfamiliar with. All I can do is act with patience, willingness to learn and careful consideration of anything I say and write. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Q3: I would like to provide a hypothetical case below. This case is inspired by an actual deletion discussion on the ArWiki, but let's assume it is a hypothetical event.

Characters: User1 (user), Admin1, Admin2, Admin3, Admin4 (admins)

Background: User1 can be considered to be a "guest" user on this wiki, primarily contributing to other language editions. On their user page, User1 puts an invitation for collaboration notice for a different language edition of Wikipedia, together with a Discord link, as is common within many Wikimedia projects. Admin1 thinks this is an advertisement, and deletes the user page, with a red template indicating that the page is deleted due to advertisement.

Deletion discussion: The discussion is about an article for a belly dancer from User1's country. The discussion is started by Admin2, claiming the subject is not notable. User1 proposes to keep the article, providing references that they consider reliable and independent, proving the subject's notability. Admin2 disagrees and repeatedly points to the deleted state of User1's user page, implying that a user with a user page in that state can not be credible. Then, Admin2 accuses User1 of deliberately deleting their words, pointing to the deleted state of their user page once again, although it is almost clear that a single word was deleted by mistake. Admin3 joins the discussion with a single-line comment: Delete, "belly dancer". Admin4 quickly closes the discussion with a decision to "delete", on the same day as User1 joins the discussion, although the discussion had been open for almost four weeks until that day.

These kinds of events can happen at any Wiki, so I wanted to keep it as general as possible. I would like to learn, in your perspective, whether the characters' behavior given in this case is compatible with the UCoC guidelines, and if not, what can be done to reduce situations like these in the long term. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think it's an excellent example; indeed it can happen in a similar way on any wiki, and obviously it's not in line with UCoC guidelines. Though the explicit UCoC guidelines are relatively new, the outlined combined behaviour is already in opposition of preexisting policies and general rules of life, but there appears to be no known way to completely avoid such things, as none of the participants can be blamed alone, but it's a sum of small mistakes which can happen to any active admin.

I don't expect a patentable solution to be found quickly, but I hope some well chosen small steps can be figured out which can help to break such chains of mistakes more often without leaving more room for actual abusers. Krd 06:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion page at ArWiki, there is not enough evidence to suggest violation of U4C in this case, and looking just at the hypothetical example, there's missing context as well. Now this doesn't mean that the admins are correct - but ultimately it's up to the community to decide and the U4CC is not a place to dispute an ordinary article deletion. Leaderboard (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• I am having the same feeling as Leaderboard, article deletion is definitely out of scope, but discrimination is. I won't directly comment on specific case but this hypothetical case will need much more context (including whether User 1 was being discriminated, or feel discriminated) to determine whether this is a violation of UCoC or civility guidelines at all. I do think that placing more scrutiny on users having their user page deleted for stating reasons related to be explicitly advertisements, and not rebuilt, is normal. 1233 （T / C） 08:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just a note here: more scrutiny doesn't mean any more prejudice, which I think seems to have happened if we can get more context. 1233 （T / C） 23:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Although I believe that article deletion is not too within the scope of U4C, judging by the of the discussion, I think more room should have been provided for discussion and resolution. Also, there is the need to ascertain the number of days/weeks a deletion request with no response from the individual involved should be open before a deletion occurs. This will help clear any trace of User1 feeling of not given the opportunity to speak. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Your question is, with this practical exemple, whether the characters' behavior given in this case is compatible with the UCoC guidelines, and if not, what can be done to reduce situations like these in the long term. When I'm reading this example, yes, of course I see a lot of similar examples like this on other wikis. It's representative.

What I see is 1 single user (no need to give him-her a number, he-she is alone...) facing 4 admins (four...). The 1st is deleting his-her user page, the 2nd is denigrating him-her, the 3rd is giving the deletion sentence, the 4th is closing the discussion (thus the user did not express him-herself) and is also carrying out the sentence. So you can just write a song about it : "The ballade of User 1 and the 4 admins" :-).

Coming back to the UCoC :

In this case, I would say, it's something like a need for "Looking out for fellow contributors". Isn't User 1 in the need of support because he-she is "treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct" ?

Wikipedia is a collaborative online encyclopedia. And when you work and discuss online, you do not always understand what's going on, who are the persons, what has to be done exactly, etc... There are a lot of misunderstandings. That's a good example, and we can see here, that more than breaches of the Code, there is above all a poor communication amongst people.

My proposal : it can be helpful, when there is a misunderstanding, that a user is not defending him-herself, but that a kind of "counsel" is speaking for him-her to the admins and coming back to the user to explain him-her how he-she can continue safely to contribute. Waltercolor (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• The hypothetical scenario you've described may fall within the mandate of the U4C, to the extent that the admin behaviour could be construed as an abuse of power. However, it is important to note that admins have discretion in how they handle requests, and often times admins need to deal with patently unreasonable requests and it is helpful to have back-up in those cases. I don't think there is sufficient context in the hypothetical scenario to say whether or not that is the case here. On the surface, it may be in scope for the U4C, and the next steps would be further investigation and fact-finding before working with the users in question to rectify the situation, if appropriate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the behavior of the characters in this scenario is not entirely compatible with the guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). To reduce these situations in the long term, it would be beneficial to implement several measures:

• • Training and Awareness: Offer regular training on the UCoC and how to conduct suppression discussions in a respectful and constructive manner.
  • Neutral Moderation: Set up neutral moderators to oversee deletion discussions and ensure that they are conducted fairly and transparently.
  • Review Process: Establish a review process for controversial deletion decisions, allowing users to appeal decisions and ensure that they have been made in accordance with the UCoC.
  • Encourage Justifications: Encourage all participants to provide detailed justifications for their opinions during deletion discussions to promote informed decision-making.--Azogbonon (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Administrators need to be "mediators" instead of "instigators" so this should have involved a lot more discussion other than trying to imply certain things. If chosen as an administrator for anything related to Wikipedia, you need to "step up" and actually be someone who is going to set an example for others, not instigate fights. Боки ✉ 19:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• I also took the time to read the actual case being used to create this example before returning to the hypothetical. I am also inclined to agree with Leaderboard here. Wether or not the page should have been deleted, and was notable, is a community decision. It would seem that some encouragement from the admins from some more perspectives may have made the situation look better. In a recent OC case I made the point that the appearance of neutrality was often as important as the actuality of neutrality. By this I mean even though I would credit the admins of trying to be neutral in the situation that the simple fact that four admins were the only respondents to a single user just looks bad, heavy handed etc. this can lead to the assumption, albeit an incorrect one, that someone is being mistreated. The points made by Azogbonon would help here in particular justifying decisions and an option to review. But as I said I think some more opinions from other users may have helped this to look more balanced. I do think closing the discussion the same day the user joined the discussion was premature. Yes it had been open for four weeks, people get busy, we have to be adapable and if discussions have to take a little longer to ensure all points of view are heard then that could have helped the appearance here. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Q4:As part of a massive online community, conflicts are inevitable. What's a specific conflict you have been involved in, and how did you handle that? Soni (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a bit undecided if this question really is appropriate. Assuming a candidate has been involved in more than one conflict, which one do you request to hear about? Krd 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, any of them. I am not trying to generate a gotcha moment or anything, I just want to separate "I have been in no conflicts ever I get along with everyone" political-speak from realistic candidates who know how to handle themselves or improve from their past. Plus, every voter will not be active on every project; letting candidates pick one incident and talk about it gives us more information than just asking generic questions will do. Soni (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Though your explanation makes sense, I still don't know if a useful answer is possible. Perhaps there are conflicts which are not public and shouldn't be made public. Perhaps there are some which were discussed in a different language and so not useful for the voter if they cannot read it. Giving the candidates interpretation of the conflict could raise the risk of reescalating the conflict. Perhaps the answers of the other candidates give me an idea what could be a good example. --Krd 15:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Here is an example of conflict where I have been involved in. It's typical from Wikipedia's communities : misunderstandings lead to escalating.

How did I handle it ? I didn't explain myself so much, because I didn't feel safe. I was surprised by these accusations, because it was not the meaning of what I wanted to say, it was a complete misunderstanding. It was my first RAA against me in more than 10 years on Wikipedia and I discovered the methods used to judge and condemn persons. So I decided to speak less on the discussion spaces and take care to speak in a general way, so that it cannot be taken personally by someone. Waltercolor (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would refer to my failed attempt to engage with various wikis to enable global sysops on their wiki in 2021. The conflict was mainly that some users thought I was being too belligerent, and in the words of one, a "public PR disaster". I first tried to clarify with them on what my intent was, but failing that, I simply took a break and eventually gave up. This fits with my approach because it's a much better outcome to potentially making a scene and worsening the situation. Leaderboard (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how fair it would be to blast the names of people I have been in conflict with over the years; maybe I can instead speak generally and refer to a few examples. In terms of direct interpersonal conflict, I usually disengage with a discussion if I'm not feeling happy about it, so I very rarely get into online shouting matches with people or even relatively minor conflicts - I typically say my bit then leave, and let others continue to argue the same or similar points as me if those points are valid. Most conflict I get into these days is when responding to requests for admin help on Meta and Wikidata. I take on a lot of cases that other admins don't like to address (read: contentious, often with an irate reporter), and try to de-escalate the situation by providing a neutral and factual review with some recommended next steps. A few times, the person requesting admin help has been unhappy with the perspective I have given, and have responded with further irate messages. In response, I tend to give them space to calm down and respond later if I think there are points that should be addressed. Sometimes I have been wrong in my assessment - when I am, I typically note so on the noticeboard and leave the user a message of apology. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• I am a bit with Krd but the general rule of thumb is to disengage in conflicts, and when only the conflict chases you that you will react and escalate to the appropriate party. Sometimes public exposure of the activity may also help. For specific conflicts I think my candidate page have already listed out at least two - though unfortunately those are escalated to T&S levels.

For normal misbehaviour I will normally disengage in such conflicts unless I am directly affected, where at that time would I respond and request respect. 1233 （T / C） 05:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've been involved in a conflict when discussing the relevance of an article on Wikipedia. A contributor disputed the notability of a topic I had proposed, arguing that the sources were not sufficiently reliable. To manage this conflict, I took the following steps: First, I listened carefully to the other contributor's arguments to understand his concerns and points of view. Then, I responded in a factual manner by providing additional sources and explaining how they were relevant and reliable according to Wikipedia's criteria. I offered to work together to improve the article, incorporating suggestions and adjusting the information to conform to community standards. When the discussion became more tense, I asked for the intervention of a moderator to help facilitate communication and prevent the conflict from escalating. After the conflict was resolved, I continued to collaborate with the contributor on other projects, which helped to strengthen relations and promote a spirit of cooperation within the community.--Azogbonon (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• I do not find it appropriate to mention a specific conflict, but I confirm that I have been exposed to many problems, some of which I have been following for more than 2 years. How do I follow them? I believe in exploring all avenues and mediation, even if it is delayed. I mean the avenues available in Wikimedia movement and foundation. NANöR (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• There have been many conflicts (if referring to Wikipedia) where I have been involved. The way I was trying to resolve it, just like anything else, was I was asking for facts and not just words. Sometimes, person can learn from someone else and all it involves is someone willing to spend some time and teach someone something. Боки ✉ 19:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• As a member of the Ombuds and also former Chair clearly I have been involved in the investigation of many disputes over the years. I cannot however provide information on these as they are private. I did however write a Diff article about the OC that should illuminate how we operate if people are interested I can provide the link. For any disputes over content that directly involved me these have been rare, however my view is similar to that of Ajraddatz in that I first disengage to ensure it does not escalate then attempt a reasonable discussion of the issue leading to hopefully a resolution we can all agree on. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Q5: There are a lot of aspects needing to be in compliance with UCoC, from affiliates to grants to events and menial edits. The ones can be solved locally, will be solved locally. So when it eventually reach up to you, the problem can be a big one. This is a daunting task for a committee of volunteers. How do you think you would handle a structural problem? What if the problem become so structural and intersectional beyond your scope, would you give up? Do you think you need more resources? RXerself (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think it's impossible to give a reasonable answer to such a vague what-if question. Krd 12:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• as Krd said, it's too soon tell if it would overwhelming, but if needed expanding membership could be ideal.~aanzx ^✉ _© 15:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think the U4C are for those borderline issues from escalating to T&S Terms of Use violation cases. No communities are perfect and there will always be issues (probably unexploded). It is just human nature. For the "handling structural problem" it will be listening and really about learning the interaction within community before deciding or finding out what actually happened, and providing suggestions. The U4C will most likely have cases where both sides have grievance, and correctly acknowledging that will definitely be hard work. For problems that goes outside of scope, or continuous handling of cases creates risks to the safety, that may mean an unfortunate escalation to T&S. 1233 （T / C） 17:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• We don't really know what the U4C workload will look like yet. It is true that the most serious problems would reach the U4C, but those are few and far between, if you look for possible UCOC-violating cases reported to Requests for comment. I do not anticipate a scenario where the committee would be unable to resolve a case raised to it, though I imagine many will be referred back to local processes or declined as unfounded. I imagine that the structural failure cases that are raised will be responded to in a manner similar to the few successful RfCs over the years relating to this topic: encouraging community discussion, working with local project users to identify the problems and possible solutions, and if needed, issuing sanctions to problematic users who refuse to change. Thankfully the largest projects are generally going to be able to handle structural problems themselves, and it is definitely feasible for the committee to resolve concerns on small and medium sized projects. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• The structural and intersectional problems are not beyond the scope of the U4C, because one of the missions and purpose of the U4C is precisely to handle structural problems.

There are specific instructions about this in the Enforcement guidelines and the U4C charter.

In the trainings of the U4C, the third module will look at complex cases.

For the systemic failures, the U4C can open an investigation, request an external report, rely on reports by the Wikimedia Foundation and other movement groups, etc...

The U4C can address systemic failures and sanction for systemic failure to enforce the Code etc...

Is it a daunting task for a committee of volunteers ? It is an important task of this Committee and, yes, people joining the Committee will have to do this. Concerning the resources, external reports can be asked, for example. Waltercolor (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Firstly: it's not "your scope" - it's the entire U4C's scope as the members work together as a team. Secondly: past precedence shows that something like the English Wikipedia's ArbCom is able to handle rather complex cases, and I don't see why the U4C can't do it. Thirdly: the main case where I foresee that extra support will be required would be when dealing with foreign languages - the charter provides for the WMF to support the U4C in such cases (i.e, provide more resources). Hence, I don't foresee a situation when "give up" would be needed, unless "give up" means forwarding the case directly to WMF Trust and Safety (or similar) when the charter/situation requires it. Leaderboard (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Handling structural problems under the UCoC can be daunting, especially if they become too complex or intersect with other serious issues. In such cases, it's essential to stay proactive and collaborative. This means thoroughly understanding the problem, engaging with affected communities, and wisely using all available resources. If the issue seems beyond what the U4C can tackle alone, it's crucial to reach out for relevant Wikimedia bodies, review detailed reports, and ask for support from the Wikimedia Foundation if necessary. The goal is to keep communication open, ensure everyone is heard, and push for solutions rather than giving up. If needed, escalating the issue to higher authorities like Trust & Safety is a key step in finding a resolution. -- Aishik Rehman (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• As Ajraddatz said, we don’t really know what the U4C workload would look like yet but I do not think there’d be cases so daunting that giving up would be an option. Dera xoxo (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Managing a structural problem within an online community is indeed a complex task for a committee of volunteers. Here's how I'd approach such a situation: I'd start with a detailed analysis to understand the nature and extent of the structural problem, including identification of the root causes and stakeholders involved. Then I would work closely with community members, affiliates and other stakeholders to develop solutions, consulting regularly and gathering feedback to ensure that proposed solutions are accepted and supported by the community. I would adopt an iterative approach to implementing solutions, allowing actions to be adjusted according to feedback and results obtained, and avoiding abrupt changes that could disrupt the community. Transparency and open communication would be maintained with the community, explaining the actions taken, the reasons behind them, and the expected results. If necessary, I would strengthen the committee's capabilities by identifying and securing additional resource needs, which could include training, technological tools or the support of external consultants. If the problem became too complex and beyond the scope of the committee, I would not hesitate to escalate the situation and collaborate with higher bodies within the organization, using broader governance structures or external experts. Finally, I'd be persistent and adaptable in finding solutions, even if it takes time, because giving up is not an option.--Azogbonon (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  No offense, but this looks like AI-written. I have tested some of your other responses and other candidates in this page and yours are the only one to be able to score above 25% in AI text detectors, some even detect 100%. Other candidates' are zero or barely make it pass the 10%. If English is not your first language and a barrier in answering, I would appreciate if you write the response yourself even using your native language. RXerself (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @RXerself,

  I've just seen your comment and I'd like to thank you for your input. I'd like to reassure you that you haven't offended me. I'd like to understand why you would make such assertions, especially as I replied several days after the questions were asked. Does this mean that I'm not intelligent enough to answer them myself, and that I have to go through AI? Azogbonon (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  The language of your responses ticked several of my boxes so to test my hypothesis, I used freely available tools to only find that your responses are the ones that have been able to score above 25% of having AI-written, other candidates' that I tested didn't. To believe it or not is up to each voters but I thought this would help to make an informed decision. Now you can deny these and if it is not true then I apologise. But how you followed and responded right above is not the way that should be, particularly for a committee concerning a code of conduct. RXerself (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @RXerself,

  Thank you for your contribution. Sorry, I've just seen your reply. I wanted to draw your attention to the time it took me to answer the "5 questions", but I understand that you are more attentive to the accuracy of my answers, which is quite normal. For your information, some people take more time to organize their ideas before answering, because it's complicated to rectify something that should be under control, which explains the successive answers on the same day. You're right, it's important to give voters time to form an opinion during the voting period. Finally, thank you very much for your contribution; I enjoyed talking to you. Azogbonon (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I will be careful to have as comprehensive a picture of the issue as possible so that I don’t look at it at one level of its structure but rather at its sequence and follow that sequence and understand and evaluate it. To the question of whether I will give up, my immediate answer is no because it’s not my nature, but in committees and group work there can be consensus decisions where could decide to stop something and then everyone has to go along with the consensus.

Seeking help and consultation is essential and this is what I always do and will do if I am faced with a problem outside my scope to get the opinion and advice of those with experience, and there are many in our movement, on how to approach it and where to find a solution.

I think the committee will need some resources and this will become apparent as the work begins and I hope the Foundation will provide it. NANöR (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Depends on the issue but I do believe that I have a strong background with technology and I would be able to find a resolution myself but Serbian Wikipedia is full of very good Wikipedians that I would have no problem asking for help, if needed. Боки ✉ 19:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• When serving on committees which deal with complex problems such as ArbCom and OC for example, becomming overwhelmed is not how I would describe the intense feelings of extremely difficult cases. Resources may be necessary. Personally I find the difficult cases, I can only speak of my experiences on OC within WMF, a challenge and that I must succeed in a saticfactory conclusion. From my experience with OC but also outside as Chair of a Board, member of high level committees which do have cultural components I am very aware of how to successfully investigate problems and how to acquire the resources I need for the task. Including within WMF. Its about the mindset and attitude and some experience to get through what may seem insumountable issues. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Q6: How would yo handle the following situation:

A user has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia X but is in good standing on Wikimedia Commons and many other Wikipedias. He updates an image on Commons which is widely used on many WIkipedias including Wikipedia X. He notices that on some of the Wikipedias, including Wikipedia X, the result of his update will invalidate the image caption. He updates the captions on all the relevant Wikipedias apart Wikipedia X. As an act of courtesy but sends an e-mail to the blocking administrator on Wikipedia X explaining the situation and recommending an appropriate change. The administrator concerned removes his e-mail privilege for trying to make changes by PROXY. Martinvl (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"A user" on "Wikipeida X"? Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 21:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There is insufficient context to answer this question, and it would not be appropriate to speculate as a result. Leaderboard (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am also to the not enough context issue, and it is not enough to speculate. Plus, this is about how local policies are applied. If you are the user, then the most probable solution is to seek enwp Arbcom for remedy, but not the U4C directly, unless that route is also exhausted and you think you are still treated unfairly. 1233 （T / C） 01:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the information provided, administrator should have dealt with the email received the way any other email is received despite the fact that user has been blocked because that user is still involved with Wikipedia which is where all of us "belong to" Боки ✉ 19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with 1233 here in that this is about local issues but the lack of context as per Leaderboard's comment also I agree makes it difficult and inapropriate to speculate. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments and questions for each candidate

1233

Questions

• You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 47% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I personally think the first U4C election was a not well-baked cake, because of that many first time problems. The rules have been a bit messy (and was acknowledged in the postmortem) and the opportunity to highlight one's personal quantities were just too hard, as voters may not have the time to really read through that many questions, plus that many candidates, and could only judge only by hard stats (e.g. edit count, on-wiki roles etc.). I do think that, with the reduced amount of questions for this election, plus a more organized spot for candidate-related info, it may make a difference. 1233 （T / C） 01:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

787IYO

Questions

• You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 37% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that representation is needed in all regions, SSA have no representatives there for the need to re-run and be represented in the UCOC for betterment and total inclusivity. 787IYO (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aishik Rehman

Questions

• Hi Aishik Rehman, three days ago you posted your candidacy, but the self introduction is still missing. Would you please introduce yourself, preferably on your candidate's page? Thank you in advance for your answer. --Ghilt (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Ghilt Due to the violent repression of student protesters in Bangladesh, the government shut down the Internet nationwide on July 18th. This disrupted access to Wikipedia and other sites. The internet connection has been restored today (*), and I have added my statement. Unfortunately, the connection remains restricted and slow, and mobile data access continues to be unavailable ): -- Aishik Rehman (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying! Ghilt (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the candidacy, it seems to be clear, that some of the assignment was not understood. Could you please state since when you are (point in time, not point of where) active in the Wikimedia Projects? Thanks Adtonko (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Adtonko (: It was a drag-and-drop mistake during typing. I was completely offline for nearly five days due to the Internet shutdown, as detailed above. I have corrected the parameter. Please check it. -- Aishik Rehman (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding those. And I am sorry to hear what is happening in your part of the world Adtonko (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• ...

Comments

• ...

Ajraddatz

Questions

• ...

Comments

• ...

Azogbonon

Questions

• Hello,

I'm particularly interested in your application. It's rare to see a French-speaking West African applying for this kind of position. Can you tell me what motivated you to apply? CapitainAfrika (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CapitainAfrika, I'm delighted that my application has caught your attention. There are several reasons why I decided to apply for this position in the Wikimedia movement. Firstly, as an active member of the Wikimedia community for many years, I have developed a passion for promoting and sharing free knowledge. I have found that the representation of French-speaking West Africa in Wikimedia's decision-making bodies is often limited, which can lead to an under-representation of the region's needs and perspectives. Secondly, my involvement in various roles within the Wikimedia community has enabled me to develop an in-depth understanding of the challenges and opportunities specific to the region. My main motivation is to actively contribute to inclusion and diversity within the Wikimedia movement. I want to help break down language barriers and ensure that the voices of French-speaking West Africa and other languages in the region are heard and taken into account. Applying for this position represents an opportunity for me to play a significant role in advancing these goals and to continue to promote the development and integration of Wikimedia projects in our region.--Azogbonon (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, I've opened your user page on Meta and noticed the lists of North African and Middle Eastern countries. Is there any special reason why Israel is not in the latter list? Alaexis (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Alaexis and thank you for your question, which I greatly appreciate. I'd like to reassure you that I don't know why Israel isn't listed. Indeed, when I joined Grants/Middle East & North Africa, there was a simple template we could use to set up our profile on our meta page. You can see this template on the profiles of several committee members. I assure you, I didn't notice this omission until now. I'll look into it, and I'd also encourage you to contact the committee managers, as they must have a more specific reason. I hope I've answered your question, and I apologize for the delay in replying; I've only just seen your message. Azogbonon (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Azogbonon, understood, thanks for your response! Alaexis (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

C.Suthorn

Questions

• Hi C.Suthorn, you wrote NWE as your region and the languages you stated are matching. Now, you are applying for the regional CEE (central and east europe) seat, as well as a community-at-large seat. A quote from your self introduction is "as some of the photos and videos I upload to Commons are either from Poland or were made in Germany and Austria but are about Central European topics". This is the only association between you and CEE in your candidate's statement. Can you allay an impression of a strategic choice of region to increase your chances of getting elected? Thank you in advance for your reply, --Ghilt (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  WMF has defined 8 "grant regions" and the U4C uses these grant regions as the regions for the regional seats. As there are only 8 regions, only the two regions NWE and CCE are allocated to Europe. Germany and Austria are assigned to Western Europe - not only at WMF, but everywhere. However, this has only been the case since the end of the Second World War and only by chance: In Austria, the four Allies decided that the four occupation zones should become a neutral (and then actually Western) state. In Germany, the three Western Allies turned the Trizone into the (Western) Federal Republic. If things had turned out differently, Germany and Austria - on the border of the Grant Regions NWE and CCE - would probably be part of CCE today. However, culturally Eastern Europe is closer to me than Spain or Portugal, for example. For example, the history of Judaism in Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe is closer to me than that in Spain and the USA. When the invasion of Ukraine happened, one of the first demos in the world was in Berlin in front of the Chancellery and I made the effort to be there and documented the demo for Wikipedia. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  The U4C charter says „one representative from each region will be elected by regional distribution“ will be elected. Given that you are not from the CEE region (that's why NWE was your region in the last election [1]) I don't think you can run for the CEE seat. I hope the election committee can clarify before voting starts @KTC? --Johannnes89 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it is to the EC to decide that. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  This election is organised by the U4C. The EC is opened to the U4C asking for advice and interpretation of election rules etc. (and some technical on results), which they have done on this and other matters. No members of the EC have expressed any issue with any of the candidates' eligibility (not including the 3 candidates that were already declared ineligible for block/lateness). It will be for the voters to decide whether they feel a candidate is suitable to represent a particular region and/or community-at-large. Regards -- KTC (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  @KTC: speaking only for myself, I'm glad to hear the whole EC has discussed this. My understanding was that you had just given your personal opinion to us about the topic rather than any kind of actual EC decision making (which we were respecting as befits your position). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I really think we should stop creating or maintaining committees that are hand-selected by the WMF and then pretend to speak for the community, who then make far-reaching decisions like this. Braveheart (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Big +1 here. Committees that have this sort of large-reaching power – (dis)allowing people to run for posts – should be accountable, at least partially, to the community itself. I have great respect to all members of the Elections Committee and I understand that they exist in a system that was not necessarily created by them, but it doesn't mean that the community cannot demand some changes. This is yet another WMF-selected committee, picked out by staff, not accountable to anyone, with no community scrutiny. One can only imagine what would happen if a different group of people, with vastly different goals/ideals were selected. This is not okay, on a principle level. Nadzik (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  As EC member I still don't fully understand why we need an EC: In my home wiki, we never needed such a committee. I guess that's how things work on en wp and on meta? I wouldn't mind if the U4C would organize it's own elections. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 15:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the bigger point here being that regional representation requires some backing from communities associated with the region, rather than using geographic terms that have immense grey areas to determine if someone is eligible or not. As with many other things related to the WMF, these kind of processes require a bottom-up approach so that the need for this committee and who represents communities of a region is understood by the communities in a region. Otherwise we end up with a random assortment of users with closer ties to the WMF than the region they represent. Braveheart (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• ...

Comments

• ...

Dera xoxo

Questions

• You stated in General Question 1 that you believe the threshold for being elected to the Committee should only be 50%. Can you please elaborate on why you hold this position? Is it not possible that lowering the threshold would allow candidates without sufficient support (e.g. 50.1%) to be elected to the committee? P,TO 19104 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes the threshold to be elected should be 50% and above because I believe that 50% out of 100% is sufficient support to be elected in the committee. If 60% is an acceptable percentage to be elected into the committee, in the same way 50% can also be an acceptable percentage to be elected into the committee because in my opinion, a candidate with 50% or higher of votes as calculated by support/(support + oppose) still has more support than opposition so they might as well be considered. Dera xoxo (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

Faendalimas

Questions

• ...

Comments

• ...

Iwuala Lucy

Questions

• You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 44% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Judging by the fact that there was still no single representative from the SSA on any of the seat in the just concluded election, I still feel that there's need for that regional representation to ensure equal representation of all the regions including the SSA, hence my bid again. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwuala Lucy (talk)

• Hi! I found myself confused with your answer to Q1. Could you give a couple examples to show what you mean? For example, how would you guarantee voters vote for candidates they might not know? Or how one would show contributions on different pages more than already done? I would also be interested in a mock up of what you mean by the equity distribution. Soni (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, By voters voting for candidates they might not know, I'm referring to an individual voting for a candidate who shares no regional or specific working relationship in particular but has in one way or other come across the various vital activities such a candidate has been part of or engaged in in the Wikimedia community, hence, the candidates active participation and contribution will help guaranteed for being considered when casting a vote. Secondly, there should be section specifically allotted for candidates to list their 'worthy contributions' on the nomination page so that interested voters can access and decide their inclination to vote for or against. Thirdly, I'll first share the difference between equity and equality - 'Equality means individual(s)or groups are given the same resources or opportunities while Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.' Simply put, just as I stated above, their should be different yard stick for eligibility and nominating candidates at their various levels of experience (e.g. in terms of visibility and notability in the Wikimedia space). That is to say, there should be different categories of candidates selection. Same also applies in terms of regional representation - there are regions that are still finding their feet and doesn't have the large number in terms of eligible voters and otherwise and when same yardstick is used for larger regions with high number of eligible voters, they do not stand a cahnce. I hope this will help clear your confusion. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't mind a follow up, could you give some specific examples? What regions will you consider in the third point? Or for the first or second points, how a mock up of your worthy contributions will look? Soni (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  A typical example of is the SSA which I would refer to as not having the vast number of Wikimedians who meet the eligibility criteria - there are quite a good number of individuals that have no idea of a community like the Wikimedia community. I believe with time a wider audience would be reached in the SSA. With regards to the third question, same way the questions are segmented, there should be a section designated for this - I guess I've been able to draw the picture in my previous response. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Krd

Questions

• I find your statement rather strange - you're pretty much one of the only candidates with just two lines that doesn't tell anything about why you've applied for the role and what you've done. I'm curious on your stance on this (i.e, why you think that wasn't necessary). Leaderboard (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that this may appear strange. Of course the obvious approach is to start by "Hello, my name is Krd, this is the list of roles I had, this is the list of unverifyable facts about me in private life, and this is my agenda." I thought about this and decided that this will not be my style this time, especially when the 500 words limit implies that a short statement is appreciated, so I tried to keep it a short as possible. I also think that usefullness of private life experience and qualification is often overrated, so though I perhaps could have mentioned one or another, I decided to skip that. And I don't have any agenda, but look forward to work with the group as open minded a possible. Krd 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• The comments I see on your 2021 steward confirmation suggest concerns that would be relevant if you're a member of the U4CC. What do you have to say about that? Leaderboard (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think some parts of the concerns are reasonable, and some perhaps are not. True is that I made mistakes when handling requests. I can even consider that I'm technically so underqualified for the steward role that I don't even understand how bad my work was. I don't think I have problems dealing with opposition to my actions, and I don't think I have have bad communication skills when being approached in a reasonable way. (I sometimes tend to be not overly helpful in return when being approached in a rude way, and I'm working on improving that.) Sadly I'm unable to improve anything regarding issues never talked about. I did quit as soon as I had reason to assume that I was not wanted as a team member, and I wish this had been pointed out earlier and with less drama. Krd 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

Leaderboard

Questions

• You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 48% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Firstly: I cannot guarantee that the result with change - can well be possible that the result wouldn't.

  With that in mind: it is difficult to answer your question unfortunately, because the main difference in my "wiki-profile" is that I got Meta adminship; it is not clear on whether that would make a difference and my wiki-profile hasn't changed otherwise. Similarly, I do not know whether the other changes the U4C made regarding the election structure would result in a difference in my chances of getting elected. I did briefly speculate on why I didn't get elected on the evaluation page of the original election, but as expected there wasn't enough data to make any conclusions from this. Leaderboard (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

NANöR

Questions

• You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 52% support ratio. While above 50%, that was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Izno, Looking at the results table I think the result I got last time was fairly well enough to encourage me to run again. The first time I ran only for the regional seat, but this time I am running for the the community at large seats to ensure diversity in these seats. Voters may look for my contributions and activism in the Wikimedia movement and communities, read my statement, and find me more suitable this time to serve on the committee. NANöR (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Hi @NANöR, I noticed your block log on Arabic Wikipedia, and I see that 12 days ago you were blocked for 'disruptive discussions and not adhering to previous warnings.' This is quite concerning, especially since this position requires high communication skills. Do you acknowledge having disruptive behavior and causing discussions to be obstructed according to the block you received? And do you think this will affect your chances in the election? أمين (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @أمين and thank you for your question. In fact, looking at the block log you refer to, you find also that there was a lifting of the block by one of the admins who says:

  "It has not been more than twenty minutes since the warning and the intensity of the discussions is not a justification for the block".

  Also, by referring to my talk page, you will find that there is an objection from another admin to the black, saying:

  "The discussion on Village pump (policy) did not reach the point of being banned, especially since the user did not attack anyone in the discussion, and she did not make any changes after the last warning. She was not even given a chance to respond to this warning. Please deal with more flexibility."

  The two admins agree that the block was hasty and that the discussion that took place on the Village pump (policy) on Arabic Wikipedia does not require or constitute a reason for a ban. That is, there was no consensus on the block.

  I may have to draw your attention to the fact that the blocking policy on Arabic Wikipedia is not clear and depends on the discretion of the admins. If there is an objection on the block and the block is lifted by other admins, which is what happened in my case, this could mean that maybe the block does not necessarily reflect the truth. NANöR (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. From this answer, I see that you still do not accept the block, and this is very concerning regarding your communication skills and acceptance of mistakes and warnings. The final decision on the talk page was "the block". You submitted a request to lift the block, but the request was denied by a neutral admin, which confirms the validity of the block. Additionally, I see on the talk page that the block was due to disruptive behavior and causing discussions to be obstructed, not because of harassment or attack. I noticed that another admin confirmed the validity of the block in detail on the talk page, stating "the block is clearly and definitively valid" and provided several warnings that were addressed to you before the block. You also mentioned that "the blocking policy on Arabic Wikipedia is not clear and depends on the discretion of the admins, but I read that the block was according to the blocking policy, which states, "deter continuous disruptive behavior by blocking from editing." This text is included in the policy. I won't go into details, but the final decision was the block. Thank you again for your response. I have one last question, please: Do you believe you meet this criterion for candidacy: "Have not been blocked on any Wikimedia project nor have an active event ban in the past one year"? Thank you. أمين (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This is to note that the Elections Committee have received an application by NANöR for an exception under section 2.1 of the U4C charter after the issue of the block was raised earlier. A decision will be made by the EC before final result is tallied. If an exception is granted, nothing changes. If an exception is not granted, as the ballot cannot be changed since voting is currently ongoing, the final result will be adjusted accordingly. Thanks -- On behalf of the EC, KTC (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@أمين: Would it be possible for you to provide links to the specific diffs by @NANöR that were considered to be disruptive by the ArWiki admins? Also a link to the policy that was used to justify the ban? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @أمين, the blocking policy on Arabic Wikipedia gives the right "if you do not agree with the ban that was applied to you, you must submit a request to lift the ban" and this is what I did and I did not do anything related to this ban after that. I do not know what mistakes you want me to accept and what is your definition of mistakes in this context. But let me go back to the points you mentioned in your comment, maybe I can clarify them more this time:

Fact: My account on Arabic Wikipedia was banned for 24 hours by an admin. I requested to lift it as it is my right and it was rejected by another admin, yes this happened. But the block was also lifted by another admin and there were comments opposing the block from more than one user, one of whom is also an admin. In this case, we are talking about 4 admins, two of whom see the block as correct and two of whom see it as hasty and the discussion that took place on Village pump (policy) does not warrant the block. There was no consensus on the block.

As for the policy, what you cited is correct: "deter continuous disruptive behavior by blocking from editing." However, we do not find in the policy a definition of disruptive behavior or examples of it, so it is up to personal evaluation and in this case to the discretion of the admins. In my account case, there was no consensus that the behavior was disruptive.

The policy also did not define "continuous", again in my account case, the block happened 20 minutes after the warning, some admins found it hasty. Therefore, it is up to the discretion of the admins.

As for the admin that you cited him, "I noticed that another admin confirmed the validity of the block in detail on the talk page,", thanks for his efforts and time for writing the comment to clarify his point of view about the block. By the way he was a side of the discussion that took place on Village pump (policy), which resulted the warning and then the block, and he is one of the users who actively discuss with me on Arabic Wikipedia, and it could be in a fast pace, such as this one. Thank you. NANöR (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

ElectCom decided to declare NANöR eligible.

Sorry for the long waiting time. This was the first time EC had to decide on such a case and in the end we were busy on Wikimania. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

ProtoplasmaKid

Questions

• You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 54% support ratio. While above 50%, that was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your question, Izno. I have the experience to do this work and I always think that second chances are a good thing. In general, I could say that I will never miss an opportunity to serve the movement. I also hope that I will be able to get elected to represent my Region. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

Taoheedah

Questions

• A while back, you were warned for warned for copyright violations on the English Wikivoyage and did not answer your talk page for over 2 years. Communication skills are critical, especially for serious issues like copyright violations – what do you think has changed since, especially that communication skills are a must for such a position like a U4C member? --SHB2000 (t • c) 07:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  My mobile device experienced technical issues at the time, which prevented me from receiving and addressing the notification in a timely manner. I acknowledge the communication gap and have taken full responsibility for it when my attention was called to it. However, I have since improved my communication skills by ensuring that I regularly check my notifications and have activated wiki notifications via my email to prevent such oversights in the future. Taoheedah (t • c) 08:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

Waltercolor

Questions

• ...

Comments

• ...

Ybsen lucero

Questions

• You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 40% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

~aanzx

Questions

• Earlier this year, you ran for steward but wasn't successful, one of which was using fandom wikis as experience, inability to detect spam among other very poor responses. Can you elaborate on why your candidacy didn't go as expected and what has changed from you since? Your election statement also does not seem particularly convincing, particularly, it doesn't address why you want to be a part of the U4C. --SHB2000 (t • c) 00:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• poor responses could have been reason for unsuccessful candidacy as answers i replied seemed logical to me, but it may have not conveyed as correct answers to users reading it, as i meant my experience on Fandom was meant as knowledge of similar tools and experience handling similar situation as stewards usergroup.
• Inability to detect spam: I still think the whole article was written in good faith w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 10 and user clearly had written article as per [2], if I failed to detect it as spam nobody clearly mentioned reasonable explanation why it was spam and i withdrew request for undeletion as the conversation was not going anywhere other clear reason why it was a promotional article, in my opinion if that page could have been out of project scope/not notable article rather than spam.
• reason for applying to be part of U4C team would be as i have fairly good understanding of good understanding of code of conduct guidelines, would like to assist enforcing guidelines however i can.~aanzx ^✉ _© 07:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• In the earlier answer, you said you have a good understanding of our Code of Conduct guidelines. Multiple community members have discussed problems with the UCoC or things they would fix in a future review. Could you point out two or three specific things in the UCoC you would change? How would you improve our code of conduct guidelines? Soni (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • In general would like to see more clarity for issues where are also different from local polcies, foundation:Policy_talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#AGF do comes to mind where improvisation is needed.~aanzx ^✉ _© 12:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

Боки

Questions

• Your home wiki is listed as Serbian Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about the issues that happened with Croatian Wikipedia (e.g. as discussed in Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021 and elsewhere)? Izno (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Izno As someone who has not contributed nor has been involved at all with Croatian Wikipedia, I cannot really comment on what has happened.

  My personal thoughts, from what I have seen by visiting Croatian Wikipedia when observing some of the articles, is that Croatian Wikipedia has been one-sided for a long time and that there is specific group of people "controling" that part of Wikipedia.

  I perssonally think that anything related to politics should not be involved when it comes to encyclopedia but that's just my opinion in the sea of other opinions that do not align with mine.

  I hope that answers your question.

  Боки ✉ 18:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• With relation to the previous question; looking through your contributions over at the Serbian Wikipedia, a pattern of behavior emerges that raises concerns about your suitability for this Committee. Section 3 of the UCoC prohibits harassment, which includes insults. However, here you call a fellow editor "a spoiled and rude brat who has not yet grown up and who still has a lot of work to do on growing up", here you call the same editor "undesirable in the community", "treasonous", and "insolent", and then you later say that you "don't understand how expressing an opinion directly and openly without mincing words is considered a personal attack". Section 3.3.2 also prohibits "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view", but in this comment you suggest organizing off-wiki canvassing by saying "who said we can't do that?" when responding to supposed canvassing by other people on the English Wikipedia. There have been some other comments, such as saying that there have "always been Serbian national traitors" and people who "aim for the spreading of Serbian history in the correct way", as well as a recent comment dismissing an article criticizing the right-wing swing of the Serbian Wikipedia by claiming that the swing is actually a "great success" for editors, and dismissing the negative picture the article might paint of the wider Wikimedia community. Given these examples, how will you assure voters that you will serve on this Committee with impartiality and fairness? — IмSтevan ^talk 09:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ImStevan It's funny how you are referring to yourself as "other editor" yet you are asking me question about something that has to do with Code of Conduct. Anyhow, you and I have had some issues in the past but that is long gone and it has nothing to do with me following code of conduct when it comes to Wikipedia, otherwise, other editors on Serbian Wikipedia would have had an issue with me or warn me.

  Just to let you know, in case if you are not aware, if you look at most of my votings when it came to the fact whether or not I deserve certain higher position in Wikipedia, outcomes have been (mostly accepted - except one when I apply for admin position) with lots and lots of people involved so lots and lots of people appreciate and follow my work at Serbian Wikipedia.

  Regarding your valuable research at my comments from the past (at which two of them involve you), I really do not want to spend my valuable time, considering I am a parent of 6 year old, to answer to you as to why I was sarcastic in the most recent comment which, if you knew me, I do a lot when it comes to certain subjects. Regarding comment that was involving Ruach, I do believe that there should be no IP addresses involved when it comes to commenting, editing and anything that has to do with Wikipedia because everyone should stand behind their words and their comments and their involvement in Wikipedia. Alas, I am not the decision maker so my comment to Ruach was an honest opinion about what I think because yes, there are lots of communities and groups outside of Wikipedia that are connected in order to have some "action" going on when it comes to Wikipedia. I mean, Serbian Wikipedia has two discord groups that involve members of Wikipedia discussing stuff so I don't see how my comment was "organizational" when we clearly have invitations all over Wikipedia where we call other members to get involved outside of Wikipedia.

  With that said, I think that my assurance that you are asking about is the fact that I have been heavily involved in everything related to Serbian Wikipedia to ensure that it looks welcoming, it looks invitational and it looks as one of the best Wikipedias in the world. If chosen, I will definitely ensure that certain things on Wikipedia either get changed or get monitored closer than they have been.

  I hope this answers your questions. Боки ✉ 19:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Боки: You can't just brush off any criticism with "I was being sarcastic", especially when it comes to insulting others. Votings regarding your positions on Serbian Wikipedia may have passed, but now we are talking about the entire Wikimedia community. You have not adressed my questions about your behaviour in relation with UCoC and how you would change your attitude and behaviour to stay in line with it.

Regarding your valuable time, you have now raised another question: if you do not have the time to answer to a question from the community properly due to other chores, how will you find time to dedicate yourself to this Committee?

I would not rate your actions on Serbian Wikipedia as welcoming or invitational, but I'm not the only one voting. Thanks for answering, although the answer should've came before the voting opened. — IмSтevan ^talk 07:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...