Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/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.

We welcome speakers of all languages in this discussion. Please comment here in any language you wish; staff or other volunteers will translate your comments to English if possible.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Questions for all candidates

Integrity

Collapsed question. This question is a rephrased version of "Is it ethical to do unethical things". All answers are rephrased versions of "No, it isn't." Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 13:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were advising a Wikimedia user, do you believe it would be ethical to promise to help someone finish their work on a wiki and then fail to do so? If the answer is yes, would misrepresenting the truth about the matter to the public make the situation better? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd Bezenek (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a candidate, I believe integrity is paramount in all interactions within the Wikimedia community. Promising to help someone with their work on a wiki and then failing to fulfill that promise would indeed be unethical. Such actions undermine trust within the community and may harm the collaborative spirit that is essential to the success of Wikimedia projects. Misrepresenting the truth about failing to fulfill a promise does not make the situation better; in fact, it exacerbates the issue. Transparency and honesty are essential values within the Wikimedia community. If someone finds themselves unable to fulfill a commitment, it is important to communicate openly and honestly with the individual affected. This allows for understanding and potentially finding alternative solutions. In summary, promising assistance and then failing to deliver undermines integrity within the Wikimedia community. Misrepresenting the truth exacerbates the situation and goes against the values of transparency and honesty that are fundamental to the community's success. Sincerely, Patriot Kor (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Todd, the short answer is no. Generally, i don't give promises i cannot keep, but i can only speak for myself. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unethical to do so, but I will prefer not to promise helping someone finish their work on wiki, as I may not be able to keep those promises. If I have promised helping them finish their work, I will just try hard to do so, and inform them (and apologize) should new circumstances arise that render me unable to complete my promises. 1233 （T / C） 04:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia space is made up of volunteers who help to ensure free access to information and knowledge and so it would be unethical to promise someone that you will assist them to finish their work on a wiki. On the other hand, I will lend a helping hand to guide them on how best to manage their time to ensure they can finish the work they are doing on a wiki. Ugwulebo (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an interesting question. While I would not personally promise things like this, the question still lies in the U4C's communications with the community. It is important that the U4C does not release statements that contradict what is actually happening behind the scenes, nor should it privately make promises to people that it may not be able to fulfill. Ensuring that the U4C is as transparent as possible without misrepresenting the truth would be my goal. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I have time, I gladly help users and answer their questions, but I would not promise someone to complete their work. --Civvì (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of integrity. We are building encyclopedias, but are still volunteers. A promise is someone making an effort to help, so I would not hold that against them even if they fail. We must always Assume Good Faith and be honest with where we stand. Soni (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as possible, no to both points. It's generally better to underpromise and overdeliver than the other way round. Integrity is paramount to me, so I wouldn't tell lies to make the situation "look" better. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you are still committed to the task or not, tell the person why did you fail, what happened. It is not cool if you keep other people waiting on you completing your part of the work. I don't think misrepresenting the matter is productive, it's wrong. RXerself (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Identity

Do you think Wikimedia would benefit if everyone had to open their identity publicly? If not why not? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd Bezenek (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Todd Bezenek, requiring everyone involved in Wikimedia projects to publicly disclose their identities is a complex issue with both potential benefits and drawbacks. Here are some considerations:

Benefits: Publicly disclosing identities can increase accountability as individuals are more likely to take responsibility for their actions when their identity is known. Knowing who is contributing to Wikimedia projects can help build trust within the community, as users can better understand each other's backgrounds and motivations. Openly sharing identities can facilitate collaboration and communication among contributors, as it creates a more personal and transparent environment.

Drawbacks: Requiring public disclosure of identities may raise privacy concerns for contributors who prefer to maintain anonymity for personal or safety reasons.Some individuals may be hesitant to contribute if they are required to reveal their identities, particularly in regions where there are concerns about safety or political repercussions. Mandating pubclic disclosure of identities could potentially deter participation from marginalized or vulnerable groups who may face discrimination or harassment. Ultimately, the decision to require public disclosure of identities on Wikimedia projects would need to carefully balance the potential benefits with the privacy and inclusivity concerns of contributors. It may be more beneficial to focus on creating a culture of transparency, accountability, and mutual respect within the community, while also providing options for users to disclose their identities if they choose to do so voluntarily. Patriot Kor (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. As Patriot Kor stated, there are pros and cons. Besides the mentioned increased accountability and trust, there would also be a reduction in online disinhibition. But anonymity is for many wikipedians i know a non-negotiable condition for editing, meaning that they would rather stop contributing than to deanonymise themselves - for many different reasons like safety, privacy or editing while at work. And in certain sensitive topics or in certain political systems, anonymity gives freedom to edit topics one would not edit otherwise, for better or worse. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because of real threats, especially when Wikimedians can be jailed just solely because they edit Wikimedia projects in a way that meets community norms but are the opposite to their government's liking. I think there are enough evidences (i.e. Middle East and some nondemocratic states) to oppose doing it to everyone publicly. However, I do think that functionaries and people who will be able to access nonpublic information should reveal their identity to the Wikimedia Foundation, albeit in a private manner. Coming from a region where democratic backsliding is rite, it seems that this (open their identity publicly) may actually do more harm than good. 1233 （T / C） 03:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikimedia would benefit when identities of all contributors are public. A good number of contributors on the space do it out of desire to volunteer and the need to document information about their places, geography and trending issues. Sometimes this information can be very crude and sensible to some quarters in their locations.

When their identities are publicly displayed, it can lead to witch hunt of contributors and threat to life of contributors. Publicly displaying identities will on the long run lead to reduced contributions on the Wikimedia space and also persecution of contributors by governments and other bodies who are against free knowledge especially information on trending issues. Ugwulebo (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As 1233 mentioned above, requiring contributors to disclose their identities can lead to threats of editors' safety. As a movement of people coming from diverse backgrounds, we benefit from a safe environment where people can contribute without fear of being persecuted by an authoritarian government or from people acting maliciously with regards to your public identity. In terms of making content, anonymity reduces the stress one may feel when making edits. On the one hand, we might make people feel more accountable, but on the other, being bold is also one of the core Wikipedia policies. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine to leave the freedom to decide how much personal data a user wants to disclose. In some places, for some categories of users and for editors of some types of content, there are safety issues related to the disclosure of personal identity. --Civvì (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Other candidates have already mentioned real life concerns that would make this impossible to impose. Other than that, many of our pages are visited by millions of people daily. This unfortunately causes several editors yearly to come under harm just because someone disagreed with a page they wrote. Anonymity is a strong safety, and I would prefer strengthening how to protect our editors. Editors who prefer public identities can already do so. Soni (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a benefit to doing this. We are all humans; there is no reason why users must know all the personal details of each contributor. Put it other way: each user here is judged not on their identity, but their contributions to the wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Making contributors disclose their identities publicly may deter them from participating especially those belonging to certain vulnerable groups who are at risk of being discriminated, harassed or even harmed when they share information that contradicts some narratives or sources of power. Several contributors reside in areas under oppressive regimes and cultures where sharing sensitive materials can lead to persecution. I think ability to anonymously contribute provides a safe zone for freedom of speech that allows individuals to share knowledge without fear of victimization, and it has been the source of strength for marginalized voices as well as a necessary condition for making these global wiki what they are. No reason to do so. Borschts^Talk 07:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to live in a world where it would be safe for everyone to edit with their real name. Unfortunately I do not think that is a good idea in the world we live in now. We have seen people jailed for contributing to Wikipedias. Sometimes this has happened in countries where editing would have always been potentially dangerous. Sometimes this has happened because those countries politics have changed and something that was safe became dangerous. In all cases it is deeply upsetting to me. On English Wikipedia we regularly get people who regret using their name (or part of their name) in their username. I hope projects do more to protect editors from this danger which they may not know about. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big no. We have doxxing, threats, and imprisonments already in the current state where disclosure is not mandatory. We should be creating a safe environment to our editors. :RXerself (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has already been said here, I could just rephrase it. But I can describe my personal experience. I take photos for Wikipedia at political protests and have repeatedly experienced attempts at intimidation or threats of violence. Among other things, I was told to my face "We know you" - an allusion to so-called "enemy lists", which are known to be run by interested groups and which have already been uncovered in individual cases. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy is of the utmost importance. The U4C will just be drawn into a number of foreseeable systemic cases to deal with if we start opening everyone's identity publicly. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of using real or pseudonymous identities should be left to the individual's preference, supporting the Wikimedia community's libertarian structure. Ozzeon (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for regular users; I do not think that they should disclose their identity publicly. They have the right to maintain their privacy or remain anonymous, the public personal information can also cause problems or be misused by some people. but when the user reaches higher permissions such as Sysop, checkuser global permission, etc. or joins one of the important WMF committees. Here the user must disclose his identity (at least to the WMF staff) to enhance credibility, trust and responsibility, and also to prevent any manipulation or ambiguity about the person. -- Ibrahim.ID ✪ 10:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a clear advantage in this and I would leave the choice of anonymity to the preference of the individual user. I think security is the main thing, the internet world is not as clean as the wiki one, revealing an identity publicly would mean exposing a user, and we have had cases in the past where revealing the real identity caused unpleasant consequences. Furthermore, unfortunately in some countries in particular, it is much better to remain anonymous. If there is doubt about the use of multiple accounts by the same person, it's not essential to know their identity, personally I have no problems if someone I trust or WMF knows who I am but I would never disclose it in public --Superpes15 (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I do NOT think that Wikimedia would benefit. Plus, this would harm users living in dangerous countries. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As many of the candidates have previously stated, having everyone publicly open their identity on Wikimedia could have both positive and negative consequences. Overall, while it is important to increase transparency and accountability, it is essential to balance these goals with the need to protect users' privacy and security from potential risks (such as online harassment or doxxing). Having everyone reveal their identities publicly on Wikimedia projects/affiliates may not be the best solution and could have unintended consequences. However, in the end it is an individual decision for each person... and that is how it should always be. Ybsen lucero (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most texts that are published in this world come from a single author or a small group (less than 50 people) who have written a text together. The identity of this person or persons is relevant because it is linked to the responsibility for this text. Wikipedia, however, is both a collaborative project and an encyclopaedic one. The latter means that the texts in Wikipedia do not reflect the views of their creators and editors, but are to be measured independently of them against the literature used to create them. If they contradict the sources, then the text must be deleted or corrected, regardless of how good the reputation of the specific Wikipedians involved may be. The former means that no text in Wikipedia is the work of just one individual or the group of individuals listed in the article history, but rather the latent work of all Wikipedians who have read the text and decided not to make any changes to it. It is possible to disclose one's identity on Wikipedia, but if there were an obligation to do so, not only would the number of contributors be much smaller (to the great detriment of the project) but the composition of contributors would be completely different and, in particular, much less diverse. There would be hardly any members of marginalised groups writing in Wikipedia and the perspective of the participants would be severely limited in terms of People who feel secure enough without having to fear personal consequences to be allowed to say anything they can think of. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a permanent option. In fact, I would argue for being much more explicit for newbies about what constitutes too much publicity in an environment like Wikimedia. This can become problematic when there are real-world controversies. Relative anonymity enables rights such as freedom of expression and guarantees free knowledge in environments hostile to it. As a movement, we have one of the most stable and reasoned standards of protection on the entire Internet, in case the authorities should, for any reason, ask for the identity of an average editor. In that sense, as a volunteer who has been harassed and doxxed for my actions as a Wikipedia editor, I feel safe and protected by the current standard of privacy. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Experience in wiki conflict resolution

What experience do you have regarding our current ways of conflict resolution (e.g. Arbitration Committee, conflict resolution as an Administrator or community processes like Requests for comment)? --Johannnes89 (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannnes89, as a candidate, I have experience in conflict resolution within the Wikimedia community through various channels. Especially in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. I have been an active contributor to Wikimedia projects and have witnessed various conflicts arise within the community. Through my participation, I have gained insights into the dynamics of conflicts and the different approaches to resolving them. I am familiar with community processes such as Requests for Comment, where community members can initiate discussions to resolve disputes or address issues affecting Wikimedia projects. While not formally trained in mediation, I have engaged in informal mediation and facilitation efforts within the community to help resolve conflicts. This involves actively listening to all parties involved, identifying common ground, and facilitating discussions aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions. Although I may not have direct experience serving on an Arbitration Committee, I am aware of its role in resolving disputes that cant be resolved through other means within the Wikimedia community. I am well-versed in Wikimedia's policies and guidelines, including those related to conduct and conflict resolution. In summary, while I may not have formal experience serving on arbitration commitees or as an administrator, I have actively participated in conflict resolution efforts within the Wikimedia community through various channels. I am committed to promoting constructive dialogue, fostering understanding, and finding peaceful resolutions to conflicts in line with Wikimedia's values and principles. Patriot Kor (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being an arbcom member for almost ten years and an administrator, i have also completed four trainings in conflict management, and i am the main author of the article conflict in English and German. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have authored at least one meta RFC related to the Chinese Wikipedia, and had involvement in a few extra, especially on the Chinese Wikipedia cases whom I may author and/or have involvement in between 2018 and 2021. As stated in my candidate statement, I have also been working for improving the conflict resolution methods and mechanisms after 2021 in the Chinese Wikipedia.

My latest involvement will be related to the Arabic Wikipedia's shutdown event - I personally, though believe that they may have a reason to demonstrate the need for a ceasefire (sic: not mentioning how here), the lack of communication seems to be the culprit of all the issues and lengthy discussions by Wikimedians opposing such closure. Unfortunately, that discussion seems to have gone nowhere.

I do believe that the coordinating committee will act as a last line of defense of community-led conflict resolution mechanisms, and particularly in areas related to behavioural problems of individuals and/or groups of individuals. 1233 （T / C） 14:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have experience in conflict resolution through my interactions with my community members who have had issues in respect to conflict. Some time ago, there was conflict in my community in respect to spearheading projects and involving community members to get grants without properly informing them. The Community head in the User group addressed the issue using Wikimedia conflict resolution pattern and it was successful. Also, I have had to appeal for removal of a block when i started. My experiences with the admins and the response exposed me to best practises to resolving conflicts in the Wikimedia space.

I have also been involved in formal and informal ways of meditating conflicts in my community as a Hub leader, grant committee member and also a member of the community. All of these experiences have exposed me to the Wikimedia conflict resolution patterns. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly interacted with ArbCom on English Wikipedia through making a statement on a case, but most of my experience comes from resolving conflicts as an admin on enwiki. Most of it had been passive, through reading how things at en:WP:AN get handled, and seeing if my judgment matches the outcome. The important fact to me is that groups like the Arbitration Committee and the U4C should be a last resort in conflict resolution, and should not act unless no other venues are able to handle the conflict. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Wikipedia does not have an arbcom so I have no experience with that body, I have been an administrator since the early stages of the project when there were both less guidelines and less users but on the other hand conflicts were quite frequent and often pretty intense. I think I have used all steps of the conflict resolution process on itwiki many times. --Civvì (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, as en.wikibooks tends to be quiet in that area. I have however helped handle the odd conflict that does happen, such as this one when I wasn't even an admin, and on MediaWiki (such as when a user was making nonsensical translations in a certain language). Edit: I also passively read RFCs and en.wiki ArbCom cases to get some exposure, partially since the wikis I'm active at doesn't have such a system. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not as experienced in terms of having held positions myself. I follow my local wiki's Arbcom and Admin Noticeboards somewhat closely, and have commented on both in a few cases. I am now fairly well versed with the general policies and resolution processes there. I have been involved in Requests for Comments somewhat extensively, as they're the biggest ways to enact larger scale change on wiki. As I mentioned in my candidate statement, my involvement in two of them (Drafts namespace and Adminship reform) are what I'm most proud of. Soni (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have experience with lots of different kinds of conflict resolution. Before becoming an administrator I would offer third opinions and help to close Requests for Comments. I am proud that I have never had any close of mine overturned as a bad close. As an administrator I attempted to help editors with disputes big and small. As an arbitrator I have had to deal with many of the hardest conflicts English Wikipedia has. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most prominent experience I've got is explained here. Also, some important context is here, in the "Your userpage" section. I hope that's enough to be worthy of consideration. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki does not have an ArbCom yet, but I have extensive experience in facilitating community processes to reach resolutions or compromises. A significant part of my role involves dealing with "unwelcome editors," but my primary goal is to prevent such situations from escalating into cases of LTA. --Borschts^Talk 06:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking just based on my experience in Indonesian and Sundanese Wikipedia. We don't have an ArbCom, so a lot of disputes and concrens are posted in Administrator's noticeboard, RfC, or the categorised village pumps. The case I mentioned in my candidacy happened recently in October 2023 and it emphasised the most important thing we should do: communication. The facilitation of such should be first in conflicts among editors where personal safety is not at risk. We don't have much conflict in Sundanese Wikipedia but cross-wiki LTA problems come now and then. The way I know it is not ideal, usually via another administrator in the Indonesian (yes) Wikipedia who tells me that there was this LTA in wp.su who had done similarly in wp.id. Other cases I had to hit the Random Article button to find it first, before realising that the edits was from months ago. I think this is especially true for smaller wikis with less active editors and administrators. Bureaucrats and cross-wiki admins do help but there are still a few times that people slipped through the cracks so I wish there was a mechanism to involve local administrators more. RXerself (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no experience with community processes such as Dispute Resolution or Requests for Comment as a member of the Arbitration Committee or as an Administrator. However, due to my active involvement in solution and dispute processes in my professional career, I believe I can provide fair support here as well. Ozzeon (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As ten years admin; The most important lesson I have learned is: to be precise and talk seriously, and not to be ambiguous or misunderstood. Many users may presuppose the presence compliments or personal relationships and you will not be neutral, and therefore you must make an effort to remove any concerns. The point is not that you are responsible and your decision is imposed by the force of policies, but rather that you must make an effort to remove any concerns. Other users should understand the rules on which you based your decision and everything related to it. that will prevent any problems in the future because sometimes problems do not stop and may continue again and again. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my statement (where I also linked an example), I have dealt with conflict resolution many times, mainly as a sysop but also as a member of the OC, GS and steward. In particular, there is not yet an ArbCom on itwiki, which is in the process of being defined, but I still had the opportunity to learn about the functioning of various policies and ArbComs in different projects, and sometimes even interact with them. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not have experience in conflict resolution in community settings or processes within the Wikimedia Movement, I have experience in similar processes within my field of work and volunteering outside the movement, which gives me access to tools and skills that can be useful in management within the U4C

Ybsen lucero (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only have minor experience in RfC on En Wikipedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannnes89 I have been an administrator on Spanish Wikipedia since 2017 where I am frequently tasked with settling disputes and defining preemptive deletions and blocks. My style of resolving is to be as less punitive as possible and to establish alternative resolution mechanisms other than blocking, which is a measure that leaves a precedent without the possibility of revocation. I was also part of the Ombuds commission for a year. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

Collapsed question. Only eligible voters are allowed to ask questions --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To all candidates,

May I ask to all UCoC Wikipedia candidates, how you would react to any new creations on Wikimedia, incomplete ones, or unreliable ones, and what would you do. Whether you'd delete them, reorganize and sort them out, or be creative in another way. And please give your true opinions on vandalism in Wikimedia. Thanks. Colonelsnow (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonelsnow As a candidate, my reaction to new creations on Wikimedia would depend on the specific situation and I will provide guidance and support where needed. I would assess the reliability of the content and take appropriate action, which may include tagging for verification, initiating discussions, or proposing deletion if necessary. Vandalism undermines the integrity of Wikimedia projects. I would swiftly revert vandalism and, if necessary, take further actions such as warning or blocking the vandal to maintain the quality and credibility of the platform and will kindly inform. Patriot Kor (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all new attempts at creation should be taken on good faith unless proven otherwise. I believe strongly that vandalism, while necessary to maintain control of has become a catch all in some cases to block inconveniences from contributing to the foundation. Any new attempt at content creation or edits should be evaluated for the potential to improve, and new editors/ coders/ creators should be fostered into helpful members of projects to the extent that volunteers have the resources and time to do so. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on the rules of a project. For example, in the german language wikipedia, incompleteness is not a reason to delete as long as the article meets a minimum stub standard and relevance criteria. Unreliable ones are more problematic, as they require a lot of research by other users to verify the statements and their sources. Calmly addressing a low reliability in articles to the user who wrote them is a first step towards improvement of problematic behaviour. If the behaviour does not improve, the article could maybe be edited by me (depending on the topic) or it could receive quality assurance templates or the article can be discussed in wikiprojects or portals. Concerning vandalism strategies, Revert, block, ignore or addressing problematic behaviour and using escalating measures in reaction to escalating behaviour are strategies commonly used. Personally, i do not think ignoring makes trolling go away too well. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For new creations - I will just treat most of them as good faith, unless there are clear evidence (i.e. track record of vandalism from user) against the assumption. I may leave it as for most new creations as no one is obliged to do anything, but I may step up to offer help if I have time (but again, I personally have no commitment on that) and ability.

For vandalism, it is a side product that comes from the success of Wikimedia projects. With a unique combination of low barrier and the high visibility, this attracts malign actors to act for their interest (i.e. vandalising articles, meddling with local community consensus, etc.) We can only deal with it only with our commitment and time, and with the support of tools, filters and other mechanisms that are designed to reduce or track vandalism. 1233 （T / C） 04:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing on Wikimedia space involves training and re-training to be skilled in its content creation. New creations on Wikimedia can sometimes come with errors in content, unreliable sources and sometimes vandalism of pages. My reaction to new creations will involve checking the experience and the contributions of the editor. If the editor is well experienced in the wiki, I will observe the new content that has been created to ensure it follows the laid down rules of neutrality and reliable sources. When these rules are not followed, I will caution the editor via the necessary channels.

When the user is cautioned and there are no visible positive improvements to the content, the user will be temporarily blocked to avoid more vandalism to Wikimedia pages. Vandalism is a major issue in the wiki space because it not only distorts information created but also leads to waste of the time of the editor who created the content.

To reduce vandalism, training and retraining should be a major topic in wiki communities. Also, organisers of events should ensure that newbies are well mentored and directed on how to go about contributing to the Wikimedia space. Also to reduce vandalism from experienced editors with conflict of interest and paid editors, there should be recruitment of more volunteer administrators to observe wiki pages to ensure that contributions follow the right process and caution will be given to defaulting editors.

To also reduce vandalism, pages of interest and trending topics should be locked to editors except editors that have displayed neutrality in their contributions on Wikimedia space. Once editors realize that pages with trending topics are restricted, it will reduce vandalism. Ugwulebo (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most important aspect of an encyclopedia to the majority of people is its content. This applies to other projects as well. I would feel happy when it is constructive and to improve the project. When the content does not seem to fit, deletion could be requested. Incomplete creations should not be deleted immediately, as there is value in saving the content for future edits, and the person may still be editing the incomplete creation. On that note though, I don't think this is very relevant to the role of U4C. Feel free to ask me a followup if you would like an answer more specific to U4C's job though :) 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and my opinion on vandalism: vandalism does not help the Wikimedia movement, and most of the times works against the purpose of the different projects. Our culture involves encouraging people to edit, and have made "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" the main slogan for the Wikipedias. This inevitably attracts people who want to attract attention by vandalism. On some levels, I think vandalism can also help introduce new people to the project, as I started contributing with anti-vandalism work. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am able to do it I would try to improve the content by adding sources or whatever is needed. Otherwise I would add the appropriate maintenance template. For a (speedy) deletion there are rules, there is no margin to be creative.
Vandalism is annoying because it takes away time and resources, but we have open projects that "anyone can edit" so a certain amount of vandalism is physiological, we can only try to find more effective ways to deal with it.--Civvì (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikimedia project has it's own standards for inclusion/deletion, and these rules are important to keep our projects useful. Vandalism (when it's clear cut) should be reverted and escalated accordingly. If any project allows vandalism for too long, it will become cluttered with pointless pages that no reader will find useful. WMF and communities have developed semi-automatic tools to both identify and revert vandalism, and to block the editors/IPs if necessary.

For new creations, there's a balance to be struck. We want new editors to learn our policies and practice better editing (How to add sources for Wikipedias, for example) but the overall project should also not be diluted. On English Wikipedia, I found Draft namespace to be a useful middle-ground; it allows pages to eventually get fixed but without the "main namespace" being cluttered. Overall, many editors will start with good faith but poor quality edits, so I will always recommend patience and helping them learn, regardless of if the pages get deleted.

This will not fully translate to all our projects (Commons or Wikidata, for example). But a general "patience with new contributors, but no giving up quality" principle will always be helpful. Soni (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic three policy of verifiability, original research, and NPOV should be developed across Wikipedia editions and promoted to prevent unreliable information. I don't think Wikimedia projects should be a place for unmarked incomplete information. For unintentional incompleteness like abandonment by editors, other editors should not be forced to finish what others have started and the project should not host half-finished discontinued contents in most cases. RXerself (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Question: how would a well-enforced UCoC promote the prime purpose of Wikimedia

In your opinion, how would a well-enforced UCoC promote the prime purpose of Wikimedia, which is to serve global readers with educational contents?--Dewa dipper 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that a UCoC is set out to solve is issues of harassment, intimidation, and toxic behavior in places where enforcement of conduct standards have been historically lacking. Enforcing UCoC fairly would help communities better tackle cases of misconduct and would positively affect the communities as a whole by reducing toxicity which improves productivity. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A well-enforced UCoC does not directly promote the purposes of Wikimedia. However, it does provide the necessary tools for creating a positive environment for contributing (i.e. one where vandalism and other disruptive toxic acts can be dealt with promptly (not eliminated)). UCoC sets out, compliments, and forms part of the Terms of Service, where it implicitly requires people to behave like how you do in real life

When these toxic behaviours are dealt with, promptly and soundly, events such as those in the Croatian Wikipedia and/or Chinese Wikipedia, where malign actors had effectively took control, would be able to be resolved without evolving into major problems that lead to news headlines. This helps Wikimedia projects to serve their goals, while keeping malign actors from pushing mis/disinformation and pushing narratives, both a direct contradiction to the values of, and a risk to the Wikimedia movement as a whole. 1233 （T / C） 14:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly, by providing an environment that allows people to want to be/stay/become a part of this project, maybe even as one's favourite hobby. The content created by us (which is for free and available almost everywhere with an internet connection) is the reason readers come here. --Ghilt (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to this is no different to that given in my statement. Wikimedia isn't only about the major wikis, and UCoC will help with wikis that are smaller - the end result is the same to the end-user, that is, to help these communities serve the main purpose of Wikimedia. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To have good content we need a large number of volunteers willing to spend their free time creating content and collaborating with each other. People are more likely to spend their free time in a pleasant and peaceful environment than in an environment where they encounter hostility or harassment. --Civvì (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prime purpose of these projects, for me, is the spread of free knowledge. We must have an environment where editors want to volunteer and the UCoC is a minimum set of expectations to try and create that environment. One thing I hope the U4C does is work on training to give editors skills to help them resolve disputes. Editors feeling confident with their dispute resolution skills should also help create a positive environment for people to want to volunteer. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really in my wheelhouse to determine a prime directive from an ambiguous set of constraints. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try not repeating takes I already agree with (UCoC can create better conditions for community collaboration) and talk about how I think this can help. I appreciate WMF but often find the WMF employees a bit 'out of touch' with the community. No group will ever be beloved, especially if you make controversial decisions. But there's still a culture difference between "the Wiki communities" and their openness, and the necessary 'opaqueness' added by a company. In cases like self governance, I think the former is a big improvement. The U4C steps into that role. I've said elsewhere that I would like to improve the community trust (in both WMF and UCoC). I think an effective U4C could help achieve that, giving us fair and transparent decision-making without losing community goodwill along the way. Soni (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A UCoC acts as a policy document guiding the activities and coordination of members in a community. A well-enforced UCoC will help to ensure uniformity, and equal representation of people and also improve the ethics associated with the Wikimedia foundation. The prime purpose of Wikimedia which is to ensure open access to information, knowledge representation and equal representation will be achieved when this document is made accessible to all members of the community and also members abide by it. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it can prevent unwanted interactions and direct discussions into more productive ways. The way editors should not fear, worry, or anxious to edit, which would make them do the mere edit and then we can read what they edit which we perhaps might not be able to had the editor already felt unsafe before they did the edit. You pave the road and make sure it is safe so people can pass not close them. RXerself (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The impact of a fully applied UCoC could be to reduce the effect of bad faith actors who might try to disseminate false information, misinformation or narratives that are biased against Wikimedia values and mission. The UCoC helps preserve content integrity and neutrality by responding quickly to disruptions and harmful actions thus ensuring that readers get truthful and dependable data. --Borschts^Talk 11:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I can contribute to resolving issues that may arise from conflicts of interest, vandalism, or weak sourcing with unproven accuracy. Ozzeon (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has an indirect effect, when you provide everyone with a healthy and organized work environment where order and justice prevail, this will certainly encourage others to volunteer in Wikimedia projects.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 10:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The objective is to guarantee a healthy, inclusive, accessible community environment that allows everyone to work in peace. To have good content, the environment must be the right one. In this the UCoC will be of fundamental importance. It's not a way of shifting the focus on user behavior, but rather of having rules of conduct that allow everyone to focus on the content! --Superpes15 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a well-enforced UCoC would directly "promote" the primary purpose of Wikimedia, still it should improve the productivity by allowing to resolve conflicts in a sane way, leaving more resources left to the primary work. A flaw in the system is that the UCOC does not provide any tools for dealing with copyright violations. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proper application of the UCoC could create a positive and supportive environment for contributors and readers, as well as promote the main purpose of the movement in multiple ways:

1. Ensuring a safe and inclusive environment: By fostering a welcoming community, free of harassment, discrimination, and other harmful behavior, more people can feel comfortable participating in Wikimedia projects, leading to a greater diversity of perspectives and contributions.

2. Encouraging respectful communication: By setting standards for civil discourse and conflict resolution, the code could help prevent disruptive behavior that detracts from Wikimedia's educational mission.

3. Improving/maintaining credibility, trust and accountability in Wikimedia projects: Enforcing the UCoC would increase transparency and accountability within the Wikimedia community. Users would be subject to consistent standards of conduct, promoting trust between volunteers.

4. Protecting user rights: By protecting the rights and dignity of all users, as well as upholding the fundamental principles of justice and respect, the UCoC would support people's efforts to access and contribute to educational content generated by users. Wikimedia projects in fear of harassment or discrimination. Ybsen lucero (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The UCoC sets standards and the enforcement of standards increases the credibility of a project. As this project is the dissemination of reliable knowledge, maximising credibility is essential for the success of the project. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every human project requires a safe environment for its development. The intention of the UCOC when we drafted it was to provide an elementary basis for coexistence that (surprisingly) we had to re-establish years after Wikipedia and the projects were created. A well-enforced code ensures not only a homogeneous floor for the development of desirable behaviors but sets important precedents for people who may not understand that we are in a human project where people come to leave the best of ourselves. On the other hand, the inequalities of the world were also replicated in Wikipedia, so there are transversal factors to people that make that there are people belonging to historically oppressed and marginalized groups that still suffer inadequate behaviors by editors located in the most hegemonic social groups. The UCOC gives us a series of tools that are a virtuous addition to our fourth pillar. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of LLMs for community communications

Large language models, like ChatGPT, are now often used for many tasks across Wikimedia projects. Do you think it would be appropriate for an U4C member to use ChatGPT to craft their U4C communications, either public or internal, by asking ChatGPT to do so for them? MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it would be appropriate. There are multiple ways one can use large language models: If someone uses it to generate ideas or ways they can evaluate a situation, but not using it to communicate, we would not be able to know that AI use is involved, so we can't do anything about it. Even then, I don't believe that would be an appropriate use, as U4C is run by humans with their own perspectives and values, and usage of AI works against that. If someone uses it to respond to all communications, with little to none human input, then it would be very inappropriate, as we might as well just offer the LLM itself a seat instead of a user operating a LLM. (which is something we should never do either!) If someone uses it for translation, I would be cautious as LLMs often editorialize your writing and can output things that you did not want to output. (Machine translation is in my opinion more reliable) UCoC decisions are mostly ethical decisions, and using LLMs to make those decisions will run into a myriad of problems. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (only in very specific case and precondition met), and no.

For crafting U4C Communications:

No first. ChatGPT, or other LLMs, should never be used directly in output. This applies basically in nearly every situation. Depending on AI output without human intervention will just basically creates issues if the model is corrupted, or just in general not trained for the purpose.
However, they can be used in providing suggestions for communications. This is more into prompt engineering, but these tools can be used to make your communications be less aggressive, insert (machine-generated) sympathy, or provide general feedback to the communications (where you must already have one draft be fed into model for "improvement"). This should also not be a case where confidential data may be leaked (which may lead to NDAs being breached unintentionally).

For using these outputs, there should always be human intervention/supervision. 1233 （T / C） 12:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or in short, no for generating direct communication, yes for probably suggestions and refinements for communication drafts. 1233 （T / C） 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not for me, because of very impersonal answers. The texts of LLM are grammatically well written but too generic in content, in my opinion. To add all the necessary information to the LLM and to correct LLM hallucinations takes as much time as to write the text myself. --Ghilt (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly against use of ChatGPT / LLM / AI in the U4C, plus strictly aginst using such for writing the candidate statements (I suspect several candidates could have used such). Taylor 49 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikimedian, I am against ChatGPT usage in nearly all forms, and definitely all U4C communication. As someone well versed with computers, I am against ChatGPT currently because it adds a lot of words but removes all meaning. If an editor is uncomfortable with communicating in English, we should encourage them to switch to their native language. The UCoC charter allows for every language other than during decisions. Soni (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general no, and definitely not for communications. I suspect some U4C members may not be as well-versed in English and may want to use ChatGPT as a support tool (I've seen something like that happen at a different community); we should let such users know that perfection in English is not expected. Leaderboard (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in the public and internal communications of U4C it will be important to be clear and precise, the choice of words will be crucial. So far I found the texts created by those tools rather verbose and generic so my answer is no. --Civvì (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be OK for a U4C member to use a large language model to communicate with other U4C members. I am lucky to speak fluent English, but I think people who do not speak fluent English should also be able to be on the U4C. I do not know how much translation help will be available but look at this page - editors must answer in English even if they are not en-n or en-4/5. If a large language model can help a U4C write their ideas better I would be OK if they used it. I am against using a large language model when writing in public or in writing to someone not on the U4C for the reasons other candidates have explained. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internal communications within the committee would be fine, but opinions of the U4C must be crafted delicately by one of the voting members. Remember, Large Language Models can only regurgitate what has come before. The entire mission of the U4C is to be the final stop to address systemic issues that no other co-equal actors are able to address. Typing a prompt into Chat GPT to get the U4C's opinions would destroy committee legitimacy. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LLM models help to ease the burden of information generation and compilation but sadly its abuse is now the in-thing in the society. Using LLM models for Wikimedia task will not only kill the originality of contents but also lead to the spread of unverified information. It would not be appropriate for a member to adopt them during communications because they are bots that cannot be fully controlled and so communications will not be original and genuine. They also destroy originality of information thereby leading to lack of creativity on the sender's part. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's exactly right. It's okay if you use it just to provide some prompts or ideas but to use most of it, like a ghostwriter, I think it's going to feel less genuine considering the thing you are going to communicate are issues involving humans. RXerself (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that keeping up with and utilizing technological advancements will support the project. However, for certain human and sensitive issues that are still in the early stages of development, such as chatbots like ChatGPT, relying solely on artificial intelligence for solutions would not be appropriate. The human factor should be more effective in dispute resolution. Ozzeon (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used them for wiki stuff and won't. Especially in a task that concerns matters of conduct, which also include a certain personal sensitivity, the drafting of any document cannot be delegated to an AI. If I had this intention I would much prefer not to run at all. I also believe that if there are communication problems due to linguistic differences when writing a resolution on conduct that perhaps concerns a minor project (maybe languages that are not known to any of the members), WMF should appoint NDA-bound translators to help U4C, instead of using machine translator. --Superpes15 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. LLMs are known for leaking information. See also the prior answers to the question. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, it depends. In most cases, LLMs like ChatGPT can only provide general ideas and often provide false information with confidence (en:Hallucination (artificial intelligence)). You can't expect it to write a whole statement for you, but I think it's okay to ask it to translate an existing written statement or check for grammatical mistakes.—Borschts^Talk 11:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a tool close to me, but the most current regulations in the use of automated tools where the expectation of human participation is absolute, for example in media, is to be absolutely clear and indicate that a given content is generated with automated tools. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct-related question

How do you decide what's appropriate conduct or not? For example, if a user refuses to use preferred pronouns after being repeatedly told by multiple different users to do so, what would you consider that to be?--BRP^ever 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we would be a group of people in the U4C, we would evaluate a situation by discussion in regards to the UCoC. By the global setup of the U4C, the U4C members may have different views and solutions on which we will collaborate to find a consensus. If that doesn't work out, depending on the situation, we will try to achieve a compromise. Personally, i would first ask the person to respect the pronouns or to not use pronouns as a first step with low escalation. Often, this approach works, because there is an unspoken arsenal of measures with increasing escalation waiting. If the answer is no, and also depending on my colleagues, we will have to see which step to take next. --Ghilt (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd answer the example first - this is definitely something that should place an at least one way interaction ban, and until at least the user is respected in the pronoun. If that may hurt the other user (i.e. religious reasons, etc.), then it may be best not to use pronouns at all, as a possible compromise. Back to the appropriate conduct, I think common sense matters. Ask yourself your immediate response if you are placed in this situation, and normally that will at least provide some insight on the particular issue. There will never be a golden rule but respect and empathy may be a suitable tool to decide if the conduct is appropriate or not. 1233 （T / C） 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated misgendering can be seen as harassment. This is outlined in "2.1 - Mutual Respect" part in the UCoC. For me personally, I'd like to get informed about the full context of the issue before making a decision. In the case of not using preferred pronouns, if there is no explanation given for this behavior, I would consider that to be inappropriate conduct. For me personally I don't think someone could actually give an appropriate explanation for not using the right pronouns of others when multiple people have already reminded them, but I would still like to see the full picture before making any enforcement decisions. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate conduct will always have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Our policies are broad enough that they cover many major cases (e.g. misgendering as 0xDeadbeef already pointed out) but it's important to do due diligence first (check what reason the editor has). We should have no leniency if someone repeatedly breaks rules though. I am not well versed in every culture, but I understand (they/them, xey/xem) are accepted alternatives just in case (say if someone is forgetful). It's more important for Wikimedian spaces to be harassment free. Soni (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this, and context becomes very important in this area. For your example, I would consider whether language or culture could be part of what we're seeing from that user - it could well be that the concept of preferred pronouns isn't quite a thing in the language that person is most familiar at. In other words, there is an upper-bound beyond which one could consider their conduct inappropriate; what that bound is cannot be determined in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language and culture of these users is going to be important. However, that is going to be context to think about not permission to ignore the identity of another user. A similar, but less emotional issue, I have noticed is when users whose usernames do not contain Latin characters (e.g. they are in Arabic or Japanese) contribute to projects with Latin characters. Some editors are OK with a Latin transliteration of their username while others are not OK with it or are not OK with how editors may abbreviate that transliteration. Ultimately it's important to me that editors feel respected and so if even if a pronoun or username are "unsupported" by a language we still need to find a way for those users to work on the same project. This is a good example where a diverse group of U4C members will help to reach better decisions. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can write as many guidelines as we want, but we will never be able to list all possible inappropriate behaviors and I don't even think we want to do that so we have to rely on common sense. If different users feel that a behavior is unpleasant or inappropriate, it is time to listen, try to understand and if necessary intervene. --Civvì (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider that a conduct issue for the Admins on that project to deal with. One user is not necessarily an issue for the U4C to deal with. Only if an entire project or significant sections of one was discriminating against someone's pronouns/gender would it be an issue for the U4C. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is appropriate conduct or vice versa can only be determined when there are guiding rules and principles on the subject matter. Where there is absence of guiding rules and principles on the use of pronouns, non-declaration of pronouns cannot be termed an appropriate conduct. If there is an existing document stating that pronouns must be used by users and a user flaunts it, that can be declared as an inappropriate conduct and the user is bound to face the consequences of their actions. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UCoC itself already laid out which and which conducts are accepted and the ones that are not. In further interpretation of the code, I will bring culturally relevant perspective particularly from the ESEAP region at the best of my capacity and will be able to also provide nuances from volunteer settings from my experience in working with the Wikimedia volunteer community. Each site projects may also have their own more specific policy so I hope I can work with local administrators and editors who would know about it more. Additionally for me, I am thinking that I probably am going to consult to management journals and reviews to search the analysis of certain behaviour if it is relevant. For the example you mentioned, I think the section 2.1 already explicitly prohibits that, other than addressing someone by their preferred pronoun is just a basic decency. RXerself (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although individuals may refuse to comply with rules, it is important to remind them to still operate within the framework of rules. The reason for wanting to stray from the rules may be due to lacking knowledge on a certain subject. I believe providing information according to their needs can help resolve the issue. Ultimately, if they persist in not adhering to the rules, we can try to find the most appropriate solution through discussion in U4C. Ozzeon (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the example of the question, the answer is already clear from the question. But what if the acceptable conduct is changed in a way that is incompatible with my values and there is no chance to correct it? In this case, I would leave the project and state the reason (this would of course be a symbolic act: my images would still be available and I would continue to publish images under a free licence, which would then find their way to Commons without my intervention). --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the answer to this question "what's appropriate conduct or not" in a particular case is explicitly provided by a policy, but frequently it is not. In the latter case, checking similar cases in the past looking for precedents is a way to tackle the challenge. Refusal to use preferred pronouns per se is possibly not a problem at all, whereas deliberate use of wrong pronouns pretty well falls under article "2.1 - Mutual respect". Taylor 49 (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this body will have to deal with a case-by-case analysis, I don't think there can be two exactly identical cases, and whether or not appropriate conduct depends on multiple factors that will need to be carefully analyzed - rather than limited to a bureaucratic vision of the situation. This work of identification is not easy, but it is essential not to limit oneself to considering certain behaviors unacceptable according to a dichotomy that is not useful, certainly the case presented (for me it's not an appropriate conduct) in the question has ample margin for revision to highlight any behaviors in contrast with the UCoC, but we cannot limit ourselves to just a superficial view of the case, for this further details would be necessary. --Superpes15 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The code as a higher instance is clear on what are inappropriate conducts, and with this we can analyze on a case by case basis. Also, misgendering is already considered within the inappropriate behaviors in section 2.1 of the UCOC in subsection 3. At a personal level as a gender-dissident person, I consider that deliberate and persistent misgendering is a transphobic and violent attitude. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications

What do you think qualifies you for this role other than just meeting the basic criteria?--BRP^ever 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being an arbcom member for almost 10 years and being an administrator, i have so far completed four trainings in conflict analysis and management. Also, i am the main author of Conflict in english and german and i'm currently working as a non-staff wikipedian in a task force to revise the safe space policy of Wikimedia Germany for events that take place in real life. --Ghilt (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an administrator on English Wikipedia has taught me a lot in understanding how to handle conduct related issues through understanding what administrative actions are appropriate to prevent further disruption. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably think of many people in my wiki who would be better qualified than me. ~~But they are not currently standing here.~~ I have experience in a fairly wide set of areas, and am happy to learn more. I want all U4C members to have a deep understanding of our projects, and I can guarantee that. Soni (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor update, several qualified candidates from different wikis have since nominated themselves. I'd be content to serve if elected, but be happy if someone with Arbcoms or equivalent experience is elected instead. I prefer a more solid U4C over most considerations. Soni (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered this question in my statement - feel free to let me know if not (or you want more detail). Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with community resilience issues on wiki (specifically for the Chinese Wikipedia) for quite some time (even before the UCoC became a thing) - which can be demonstrated by this meta RFC as early as 2017, as a first attempt to escalate/bring this issue to global attention. I have also authored two separate opinions in 2019 and 2021 in Signpost, one explaining the situation in the Chinese Wikipedia (with some now globally-banned users trolling), and the other one explaining the tremendous safety risk that Chinese Wikipedia users would need to face when they speak up against the working groups of Wikimedians in Chinese Wikipedia. In the Fram case, I also tried rebute another now foundation-banned user's allegations against the Trust and Safety team by explaining how office actions work and their implications. Furthermore, I also authored and led the discussion for implementing SecurePoll into Chinese Wikipedia's admin elections, and facilitated discussions for on-wiki issues related to civility and (possibly abusive) questionable administrative tool use cases.--1233 （T / C） 13:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I discuss this on my candidate page, but I combine content editing experience, administrative experience, Arbitrator experience, and experience helping to write the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C charter. I also think that my personal qualities help to make me a good candidate for the U4C, including my commitment to be someone who does the work. Rather than repeating what I wrote on the candidate page, I'll stop here and link to that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In both communities where I am active, I and a few other users are nearly solely responsible for steering all issues towards peace. Several concrete facts attest to this. Unfortunately, however, I cannot identify other users among the candidates who, like me, consistently strive for peace and problem resolution within my communities. Additionally, I serve as a guide for an IT company. I possess significant experience in fostering peace and tranquility among employees. --Patriot Kor (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an administrator and bureaucrat for more than 12 years and have a pretty good view of online and offline activities. I was also a member of the UCoC drafting committee and had the opportunity to closely follow the creation of the enforcement guidelines. But I went into more detail in the application summary. --Civvì (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not going to have a better explanation of my qualifications than this section. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
As i have stated in my candidate page, I have experience in coordinating and leading Wikimedia groups with users from different backgrounds and trainings. My experience comes through active participation in Wikimedia projects and also organizing projects. As a librarian, I have also been involved in the formulation of collection development policy document for my library which has enhanced collection developments and users' satisfaction. I was also part of the pioneer grant committee members for the Nigerian User group who helped to form guiding principles for fund disbursement and ensure the coordination and disbursement of funds for the Nigerian Community. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I can bring a different perspective in resolution through the U4C. I don't have extensive experience in ArbCom or drafting the UCoC, but I believe what I have experienced represents a lot of what many other editors have. In my early years of contributions I don't really have a desire to delve myself much in governance or policy-making aspect of Wikimedia projects because I did not feel that it affected me, so I just kept writing articles and without knowing it, I reached 7,000 edits in the Sundanese Wikipedia. This changed when I started to see that Wikimedia projects were no longer a "fly on the wall" which I felt was around the later of last decade when Indonesian media outlets started to show Wikipedia in their news. And then doxxing happened and I remember being lacked of resource to counter it. And I believe this is what a lot of editors have in mind too, you just minded our own business, you did not have any political or group-specific intentions when you contribute, you are not an administrator/bureaucrat/steward, then suddenly people call you their enemy No. 1 just for reverting an edit in an article about them and you don't know whether these people would actually come up to your front door or not and you realised you don't have a lot of choice and you wondered how the hell did it get into this, it never felt this way before. I know that this perspective is shared among other editors because I saw the people who had them, and I hear from people who have them. I think it should not be that way. RXerself (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am constantly striving to improve myself. Discussing with international representatives about dispute resolutions is important to me as it provides an opportunity to seek the truth and gain insights into how other cultures think. Ozzeon (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main point, apart from various user rights, is actually my global experience in projects, for U4C it is essential not to have a limited vision of your project, to understand different ways of thinking and different cultures. As I have already said, applying policies rigidly and dichotomously can be dangerous, this body will first of all have to collaborate with local functionaries and and this global approach is fundamental. - --Superpes15 (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this role is made to protect users in a similar situation as me. My unique experience as a user on En Wiki, and then as a candidate I hope will help the U4C in it's mission. I would like to be a part of the first U4C because I think I would add value to the committee on that basis. However, I hope the U4C will understand it's mission and drafted goal and improve the foundation overall whether or not I'm allowed to be a part of that work. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My willingness to fulfil this role. There are a large number of Wikipedians who would be better suited to this role, but who are not running. Many of the other candidates are also better suited than me, but many of the other candidates have similar backgrounds and I believe that I can bring experience that other candidates do not have to the same extent. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture shock

As a member of the U4C, you will be responsible for evaluating abuses of power and other systemic issues in projects that which you do not understand the language, policies, or culture of. How do you think your experience on Wikimedia has demonstrated your ability to empathize with other projects without making assumptions? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are the availability bias and the confirmation bias that cause assumptions as two prominent factors. Being human i am not free of assumptions, but i try to be conscious about not falling for the biases. Editing in different projects (i have written articles in de, en, fr and it so far) helps building a deeper understanding for cultural differences. --Ghilt (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hard one because I can't think of any concrete examples off the top of my head. I like to apply the principle of "not judging unless I have seen enough" both in real life and on-wiki. There are times where I disagreed with others about assumptions of editors as seen in en:Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 1#Block of ASmallMapleLeaf, where I disagreed with others over whether a sanction was necessary to prevent harm to the project. I generally take the conservative approach and try to completely analyze the full situation before coming to any conclusions. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my statement, I made a mistake a few years back where I made incorrect assumptions about how projects handle a certain issue. I regularly visit wikis in languages I don't understand, and try to see how their policies and related discussions differ from those I'm more familiar with (and see if I can apply them in my homewikis). Being passively active on Meta's Steward requests/Permissions and associated areas has also helped in this. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In situations where I do not fully understand the language, policies, or culture, I make it a priority to seek guidance and expertise from those who know the context first. --Patriot Kor (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with other languages and cultures I try to do a lot of listening and asking of questions. I want to learn and want to understand and I have found doing that helpful. I also want to learn and understand the perspective of individuals. Some of the hardest things I've ever done as a Wikipedian has been to sanction other volunteers who have worked hard and who love the project as much as I do but who have violated policies enough that a sanction might need to happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During and after the drafting of UCoC, I had the opportunity to come into contact with volunteers from different projects around the world and listen to their particularities, difficulties and also their fears; I learned a lot about both the similarities and differences within the movement. I also believe that U4C should have the tools and resources available to be able to understand different languages and cultures; I would ask for them. --Civvì (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Functioning as the sole proto-member of the U4C, for better or worse,~~ I went here, and I raised a systemic issue, which En Wiki Admins have been very gracious in solving. They have done an excellent job in the past few days. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thread you have linked does not demonstrate your ability to empathize with other projects without making assumptions, and in fact does the exact opposite. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't learn a valuable lesson ~~in empathizing with co-equal actors~~ until the next day. Look here, for the full context under "Your userpage". I would ask for grace and understanding of the intense pressure I was under, although I don't expect I'll receive any. I was under great stress on April 6, and I said En Wiki Admins have done a great job. Clearly, I wasn't trying to brag about the situation. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatian Wikipedia case show how we can resolve local governance issues through global community support. I believe that the U4C should do things in a similar context. In understanding cultural context, I believe that no assumptions should be made. We should first establish facts, then rationale, before making a decision to defuse, deescalate, and resolve these issues. Communicating in offline events (e.g. Wikimania) also make me able to understand, show sympathy and support issues that a project is facing and that I may not have high involvement (and understanding) of. 1233 （T / C） 08:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I join a meetup offline, I am surprised by how different my "home wiki" is from many Wikimedia projects. My experiences with hackathons alongside other Indic community members made me learn how many assumptions I hold aren't universal (For some: how close knit the community can feel, how easy it is for a wiki to "die out" of no contributors, how hard it is to get "tech support" from WMF/community maintainers, how long critical issues can remain unsolved). In 2017, I'd advised for a WMF ad campaign in India, and hearing other community members' POV on simple things I take for granted (People know how to find my project, for one) was helpful. Soni (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The response I provided in the previous question also encompasses this one. Discussing with international representatives about dispute resolutions is important to me as it provides an opportunity to seek the truth and gain insights into how other cultures think. The formed U4C committee consists of representatives from different regions, taking into account cultural differences. Each regional representative, being knowledgeable about their own cultural sensitivities, will convey necessary details to prevent culture shock. Ozzeon (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with wikimedians both locally and internationally has helped me to understand the intricacies of different volunteer community. This experience will help me to ensure that abuses of power and other systematic issues are well monitored. To ensure proper judgments, I will always ensure that the parties involved are given fair hearing so that we can arrive at a right conclusion. In my home community, fair hearing from all parties help to ensure that issues in the wiki space are amicably settled. this experience will be used to ensure that U4C gives informed judgements on issues brought before it. Ugwulebo (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I view the U4C should have the resources to support these differences in culture. Starting with language, translation is very important and although it may require a lot of time when a case involves a lot of text/discussion of a purported violation, translation is fundamental for the U4C to be able to understand fully what they are working for. Understanding more of a culture requires U4C to do their research whether through web or interview with the involved editors/people. This is why I think, and I want to push that at least there should be resources allocated to this from WMF with a lot of commitment. RXerself (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow my interactions on social media, you will notice that I am sometimes questioning views that "everyone" has and describe a different view. This occasionally leads to me being accused of holding such a view myself, but it also causes others (and me) to change views that are recognised as inaccurate. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the main point and I think that will be what leads to more "internal conflicts" in U4C, it is not at all easy to have an identical code of conduct for hundreds of projects, it requires application as uniform as possible, but at the same time we must never deviate from the culture and mentality of the project we are talking about. I believe that all U4C members, to avoid problems, must put the local policies and procedures aside and work with the utmost empathy, and with the desire to understand the mentality and functioning of a project before rigidly applying the policies. --Superpes15 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of Consensus for the Code itself

The Foundation's news item on the Code of Conduct mentions "we are built around a model of shared power and consensus". What is your view on proceeding with the U4C process when there is an absence of consensus for the Code of Conduct itself?

The Foundation disregarded all objections that consensus was needed for the Code of Conduct. There have been objections that without consensus the entire process lacks legitimacy, lacks community buy-in, and lacks an opportunity for consensus to correct flaws in the Code. I'll try to avoid lengthy argument, and just I'll just say I think the Foundation is shooting itself in the foot again. I've seen the Foundation's lack of respect for legitimate process making opponents out of many of the exact people the Foundation needs as allies for this. Alsee (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak on the entire Charter with authority, but I will relate the question to the U4C. The Committee will split one co-equal token as I see it, and split it 16 ways. They will be co-equal actors with all other powerful actors under the Foundation's umbrella. Every token is propped up by two things from here on in, the Draft Charter (or local equivalent authorities) and legitimacy. If the U4C's first ruling after the election is an opinion issues which in itself has systemic bias, then other co-equal actors would need to smash the token. It would give the U4C zero legitimacy. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I think that UCoC is just an reinterpretation of section 4 of the terms of use (before it's addition of UCoC mentions). The rationale behind singling out this section is due to so many unfortunate events (online, offline, outside of wiki) that happened between 2013 and 2021. In my opinion, the UCoC is used to delegate some obligations that the Wikimedia Foundation must bear as a service/platform provider to the wider movement.

----

Now the long reply:

The presence of UCoC is due to so many unfortunate events that happened between 2013 and 2021 across at least two language versions, as stated by various statements by me on this page above, below, and in my candidate page. Actually, I would rather not have UCoC at all because there have been provisions in the Terms of Use, since 2012, to prohibit users engaging in harassing acts.

However, the ToS had actually been repeatedly violated by malign senior community members. One of them have even been offered full scholarship to Wikimania. Although the user had now been subsequently banned by the Wikimedia Foundation's CR&S team, this shows how complicated community governance issues can be, the inability for local communities to deal with it when it is too complicated, and the foundation's restricted ability to deal with them without community processes.

I do think that the current iteration does provide opportunities for consensus to correct flaws in the UCoC, and the current model (and iteration of UCoC and U4C) is designed to delegate legal obligations from the Wikimedia Foundation to community processes.

Although everyone hopes the movement is as free from external factors as possible (free from legal obligations), the Wikimedia Foundation operates as a legal entity in the United States and is required to fulfil legal obligations as mandated by US and international law.

I do not want events like the 2021 Trust & Safety bans, similar ones in 2022, or systematic abuses from one user that affected the Croatian Wikipedia from happening again. Apart from the last one, the first two should and could be handled without creating rifts in the greater Wikimedia Community. This is where I see the UCoC and U4C valuable (and thus why I would like to run as well).

UCoC and U4C, thus, should act as the intermediary between local community successfully resoles internal issues and the foundation directly interferes in local community decisions (as a service provider).

Furthermore, I believe that the UCoC should be amended wherever appropriately, though the principles should remain consistent - that we should respect others even if we don't agree, and U4C should not override local community governance structures - over time. 1233 （T / C） 07:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also never interfere with established working community processes, and I think this has been sufficiently addressed. --1233 （T / C） 09:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately if the board wants to pass a policy I think they can. But it's a huge ongoing mistake to not have sought consensus for the UCoC itself. As I note in my candidate statement that lack of consensus is the most important thing about the code that needs to change. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having community members on the U4C will help the community's voices be heard. I am cautiously optimistic about UCoC making a positive influence. While I have personally disagreed with some of WMF's decisions and actions in the past, establishing a U4C is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between 'legal' and (morally) 'legitimate'. The Board can legally do so. But it is imho unwise to ignore the interest of a major stakeholder - that the volunteers want to have a say in each step. Also, there should be a consistence between theory (community, consensus, subsidiarity principle) and practice. Let's see what can be improved. --Ghilt (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion mirrors 1233's for the most part. The criticism the OP makes boils down to the fact that the community did not have a say on whether the UCoC itself was required. I see that as similar to things such as WMF-initiated office actions - the community doesn't have a say on that either. In fact, I'd argue that the UCoC model is more collaborative than what we have now. Not only did the community have a say on ratification, the UCoC revisions were made by a group of volunteers as well, and the UCoC charter encourages community feedback (see section 4.3.1) - all of which are missing in the current system. I also hope that the UCoC will help improve transparency into sanctions and conduct actions, the process of which is quite opaque at the moment (see 1233's links for examples). Leaderboard (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, situations where there is no consensus may be legal, or decisions reached through consensus may be unlawful. Therefore, it is best to thoroughly evaluate ethical issues and strive to reach a conclusion. Achieving the correct outcome may not always be possible. What's important is to act ethically and lawfully. Ozzeon (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, where consensus is absent, there may not be full implementation of resolutions that will cover all the members of a community. Lack of consensus can be traced to underrepresentation. One of the first set of documents that the U4C board should work towards putting out is to ensure that there is a consensus from members to enable the Code of Conduct represent the various communities under the foundation and it will lead to general acceptability of policy documents. Ugwulebo (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirected question and answer

@Ghilt {{Citation needed}}. You claim "community ha[d] a say on ratification". I believe the timeline was as follows: The Foundation announced a UCoC was necessary, which you defend. Fine. However the Foundation then unilaterally appointed 9 members to the UCoC drafting committee, zero community selected representatives.^ref (The Foundation was represented by 4 staff, and the Foundation was further represented by its choice of 5 non-staff). The UCoC drafting process was then a farce, with people abandoning the process. The Community and Consensus were allowed zero power or control over the Code. The Community was assigned the role of futile freedom to comment. The Foundation then proceeded with guidelines on roles and pathways for conduct enforcement, with the UCoC explicitly excluded from debate. Enforcement Guidelines were indeed ratified on a second vote, without any ratified Code of Conduct to enforce. And now the Foundation rolls U4C forward, still with zero allowance for Community Consensus to approve or even amend anything in the Code of Conduct. Alsee (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, i guess my answer was unclear, sorry for that: i meant that the community's interest is to have a say. --Ghilt (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghilt your new post is very unclear. Any individual on the internet could post a comment on the talk page and be ignored. I hope(?) that's not what you mean by "the community's interest is to have a say"?

The UCoC was written by the Foundation's 9 appointed representatives, then approved by Board. The Code was never approved by the Community. The Foundation acknowledges absolutely no authority for Global Community Consensus to approve, reject, or alter any portion of the Code of Conduct. My question is your view on the Foundation simply rolling this process forwards when the Community was never allowed any say on the original Code of Conduct. Alsee (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: It seems like you intended to ping me but ended up pinging Ghilt. Do you still need me to respond to something? Leaderboard (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghilt: Oops, I accidentally pinged you when I intended to ping Leaderboard. You can disregard this discussion thread. Alsee (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard {{Citation needed}}. You claim "community ha[d] a say on ratification" (of the UCoC). I believe the timeline was as follows: The Foundation announced a UCoC was necessary, which you defend. Fine. However the Foundation then unilaterally appointed 9 members to the UCoC drafting committee, zero community selected representatives.^ref (The Foundation was represented by 4 staff, and the Foundation was further represented by its choice of 5 non-staff). The UCoC drafting process was then a farce, with people abandoning the process because they didn't want waste their time. The Foundation defined a dictatorial process with the Community assigned the role of powerless freedom to comment. The Foundation then proceeded with guidelines on roles and pathways for conduct enforcement, with the UCoC explicitly excluded from debate. Enforcement Guidelines were indeed ratified on a second vote, but staff simply ignored everyone saying the Code of Conduct itself needed community approval.

P.S. I've been away a bit, and I've first read U4C charter 4.3 per your comment. It once again demonstrates the Foundation's pathological refusal to respect or even acknowledge the existence of Community Consensus or Community Governance processes. The Community is banned from initiating any consensus regarding the UCoC, in that 4.3 doesn't even acknowledge the existence of such a thing. It assigns U4C sole authority to even draft a proposal. While it certainly could have been worse, I am going to be blunt and say the Foundation is being self-destructively stupid. If there is a problem, and the community opens an RFC to address that problem, and a thousand people respond with overwhelming approval, and the WMF says "nuh-uh, we don't acknowledge the existence of community consensus or existence of community governance processes, only the U4C is allowed to open a proposal", the WMF is just going to be eating another crisis. Alsee (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee:,

While I can see why you'd prefer community selection for this, and while that would have been ideal, it doesn't strike as particularly problematic what the WMF did, at least for the first iteration where there's a lot to be sketched. The community members it selected were all experienced and capable volunteers anyway.
"UCoC drafting process was then a farce, with people abandoning the process" - do you have evidence that it's a "farce"? I disagree with your assertion that the ability to comment is "powerless", without more context at least.
Looking at your second paragraph, I get the impression that your view is that the community has to dictate the U4C in every way. This I don't agree. While collaboration is indeed important, there are areas and aspects that are best handled by a smaller group of volunteers (and from what I've seen, en.wiki ArbCom works in pretty much the same way - correct me if I'm wrong). The example you've given is a bit too hypothetical in my view. Yes, in theory you're right in that the WMF could ignore community consensus - in theory. I doubt the WMF would do something like this in practice - and if something like this were to even remotely happen, it's not like the U4C members are powerless either.

Leaderboard (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding 1233's general take on this. While I have personal disagreements with some of U4C and the way it's been implemented, I also can't deny that it did go through community and consensus processes. We had a hand in drafting it, and we were given an up-down ratification vote on it. I do not think this is enough though, in that the UCoC and U4C could go further and more proactively engage with the community. I would like more trust being built from U4C and WMF side, as well as (for lack of a better word) better outreach to various Wikis. But I think removing all of U4C without establishing some more consensus would be one step forward, two steps backwards. Soni (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni I dispute your claim that that Code of Conduct "did go through community and consensus processes. We had a hand in drafting it, and we were given an up-down ratification vote on it. Please see my Citation Needed response to Leaderboard above. Alsee (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're expressing similar sentiments but from two different directions. When we had a vote to ratify UCoC, I leant No. I also share the concerns you have expressed. It's just that we fall in different buckets for "Did the UCoC go through consensus". I personally care more about the main through-line, "The community should have greater involvement and say". There is a lot of work for the U3C committee to do, and increasing community trust will be one of the bigger challenges. Soni (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni {{Failed Verification}}. You provided a link with the (perhaps accidentally) misleading title "we had a vote to ratify UCoC". That link in fact does not lead to a vote to ratify UCoC. Alsee (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I am mixing up the timelines a bit. I shall re-read your comment and refresh my memories of this process. That said, my general sentiment remains. Soni (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of a Code of Conduct is the first point in the Movement Strategy recommendation Provide for Safety and Inclusion so I wouldn’t say that there is absence of consensus for the Code itself. The current document was never ratified by the community and I agree that this needs to be fixed, I think the first review could be the opportunity to do this. --Civvì (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Civvì you mention the 2030 Movement Strategy. There was unanimous strong opposition through three stages of review for at least one section of the Strategy. The Strategy item Innovate in Free Knowledge is toned down from earlier versions, but it fundamentally seeks to eliminate or subvert core content quality policies such as Verifiability, Reliable Sourcing, and Notability. You can see unanimous opposition here. The Foundation has repeatedly raised this idea for years, and the community has been pretty brutal in rejecting it as catastrophically naive and unworkable every time.

The Foundation spent a fortune collecting community input for the Strategy process. Staff had no idea how to process that chaotic content into anything actually reflective or representative of the community. Staff were assigned to build a strategy, they shoved in their own pet projects and personal opinions without regard for whether any bit in particular had any grounding or support from the community. Disregarding whether the community may even be violently opposed to any particular thing. Alsee (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some decisions of the Foundation during the process (as criticized above) were indeed unfortunate. Still the review and amendment process should be used to address the problem, rather than a fundamental opposition. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C can address the gaps in consensus in future opinions issued through it's jurisdiction and annual review and amendment. I believe that the Foundation was correct that the consensus was not necessary for the initial Code, but it does require an early annual review and a long discussion period to increase user buy in after the first U4C is seated. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very presence of this question emphasise the importance of communication in Wikimedia governance. Although I agree with other candidates that a policy such as UCoC is needed in response to cases across the projects, it should also have a good process and not ignore dissenting voices in its creation. I think a good way to pursue this forward would be taking more input and more considerations in reviews in ways that were not done before. But this I hope can be done while we have a UCoC so in some aspects in the movement we can still prevent and act upon certain behaviours. RXerself (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having community members coming into U4C working on this is critically important and will help bring a more community vision. It will certainly be possible to carry out new community votes regarding a UCoC also for future improvements. Let's say that a global code of conduct is necessary, especially at a time like this, it is probably necessary to bring more community voice to the WMF level and I believe that U4C is one of the methods to do this! --Superpes15 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annual review and amendment

When should the first annual review and amendment process of the UCoC, EGs, and U4C Charter take place? Should this process also be used to establish community support for the UCoC text? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already indicated that I think the entire UCoC, not just amendments, should be put up for ratification at the first review. Incorporating that review, and mandatory community voting, was the best option that I and others who felt it a mistake not to have ratified the UCoC came up with when writing the enforcement guidelines. As to when it should happen, ideally it would have been January 2024. But we're not in an ideal world and so I think at this point the U4C needs to stand itself up. So realistically I'd aim for the ratification vote to happen in October, which means the review process would likely need to start in August/September. That would allow the annual review happening at the halfway mark of each U4C. The other option - and I don't like it because of how long it would be from now - is to unify U4C elections with amendments to the UCoC, UCoC EG, and U4C charter, so there would only have to be a single annual vote for UCoC related pieces. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I enormously appreciate your view that the UCoC be subject to community vote.

As I implied above in response to Ghilt and Leaderboard, I believe the absence of vote on the UCoC was merely one symptom of a fundamentally improper drafting process. (The Foundation's typical well intentioned but naive attempt to be participatory and inclusive, which ends up dysfunctional and exclusionary in practice.) I would not want the current version of the Code to attempt to cruise through on inertia in an isolated up-down vote, especially not under the Foundation's preferred SecurePoll process where voters largely arrive and vote without any chance to see or discuss the problems or alternatives raised by others. If we want to get this right, with active community support, we need a proper community empowered process where specific problems and amendments can be raised and debated. And of course any new version would be subject to Board review and approval before staff considered it to have any validity. Alsee (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how different we are saying things? There's some scenario where all the community votes on are proposed revisions at the annual review. This wouldn't address the initial mistake. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming a scenario with no vote until annual review, I'll give both an optimistic and a pessimistic answer.

Optimistically we have an unapproved Code until then, hopefully no conflicts until then, and resolve the issue then.

Pessimistically: Two problems. (1) We have an unapproved Code until then and the Framban conflict potentially re-explodes. (2) The community approves some changes, the Board declines those changes, functionally leaving us with a permanently unapproved Code. That leaves an ongoing risk of explosive conflict.

In regards to the pessimistic scenario I'd like to note that, as best I can tell, the Foundation either DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the lessons of the Framban incident or has actively rejected the lessons of that incident. I witnessed Trust&Safety issuing a threat against an individual based solely on staff disagreement with the social/political viewpoint of an individual's article edits. For the record I am not endorsing the viewpoint of that individual's article edits, I'll even say it shouldn't be hard to imagine what sorts of viewpoints might offend staff and tempt them to go after an individual. The issue is that the Foundation has absolutely no business abusing the ban process as a battlefield weapon to defend or advance Foundation-favored viewpoint in articles, no matter how they feel about those viewpoints. Alsee (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to unify U4C elections with amendments to the UCoC, UCoC EG, and U4C charter, so there would only have to be a single annual vote for UCoC related pieces.

@Barkeep49 To clarify, do you mean "One vote for ratification and amendments, then elections after N days/weeks?" It'd be hard to amend things like 'reserved' seats or home wiki limits without it being completed before the next elections. Soni (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions of the U4C should not be changeable by annual review. We can't have a system where the U4C addressed a systemic problem, and then whichever group dislikes the decision spams the annual review to unravel any decision of the U4C from the previous year. The co-equal token is useless if that's going to be the case. There would be no point in seating the U4C because the work would always be unraveled within a few months. There must be a way to establish lasting precedents or the whole idea of the U4C is doomed for failure. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would prefer to see U4C in action before suggesting a specific timeline for processes. Everything we have is newly built and not tested at all. Will we see lots of spurious cases and the system being gamed? Will the committee structure be stable enough to effectively judge cases? I have none of those answers yet, or quite a few more.

I do think all of UCoC should be be subject to a community review. I again cannot pre-commit to a specific format before knowing more but I personally liked enwiki's 2024 Vector RFC in terms of collecting actionable data on every possible concern, while still maintaining bigger picture evaluation for "Does the community approve of this as a whole". That last question is necessary for any review of UCoC, in my opinion. Soni (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first annual review of EG, the UCoC, and U4C Charter should take place at December this year, or whenever there's a (genuine) RFC concerning the execution of these documents in place opened on meta, whichever is earlier.

It is more or less (or lack thereof) related to experiences in enforcing the Code, though I hope there are just no enforcement at all (because people should behave, right?). UCoC is used to compliment and strengthen community guidelines on civility.

The text should be amended whenever appropriate, and should do so in a way similar to how we build and reach community consensus. I do think that each discussion will tread the goalpost for the UCoC (and the EC + U4C) to be more community centric.

1233 （T / C） 02:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should start at December - i.e. reviewing takes time. Accepting suggestions should be done as the UCoC is fluid in nature. 1233 （T / C） 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your general timeline while also maintaining that U4C opinions are not subject to annual review through the normal process. Overturning a U4C opinion should take a much higher percentage of the community than normal amendments. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U4C rulings are always open to be challenged, though in most cases, when they are done through sound processes, they are very hard to be. And, as stated, it is UCoC that goes through review. 1233 （T / C） 05:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be combined with the next year's election. While I understand Barkeep's concern in that it may be rather late, I concur with a couple of other candidates in that we need to give some time to see how well the UCoC works, and I think that shortening this period would leave us with an incomplete picture, especially given that there's still some administrative work to be done even after this initial election. Additionally, the fact that the official review may be after a year does not preclude the community from providing feedback at any time, as the UCoC charter (see section 4.3) requires a publicly available feedback page on Meta-Wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A half a year seems appropriate to start the review and ratification process (if possible) after having gained an overview. --Ghilt (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to address the second part first. Section 4.3.2 of the charter describes a voting phase for any changes to the charter, the enforcement guidelines, or the UCoC, after community input in the feedback evaluation and drafting phases. Although support on the enforcement guidelines has increased from 56.98% to 76.03% after revision, a single "Yes" vs "No" number reveals little about the extent to which people from different projects agree on different sections of the UCoC or the enforcement guidelines. A process that invites feedback from community members would certainly help build community support, and the latter should be a goal in the review process. For the timeline, I believe it is important that the U4C monitors UCoC incidents for some time to allow the U4C to collectively hold a good understanding of UCoC in action, as well as for enough community feedback during the process to be collected before initating a formal review process. This means I won't have a definitive answer until I am able to see the amount of feedback and incidents that has accumulated. My initial feeling is that starting in August/September, which is 3.5 months since the term begins, might be too early for the U4C to be confident enough in evaluating how UCoC and enforcement works in practice. As a guess, I would probably be more comfortable with starting at 6/7 months after the term begins. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about this, but depending on the intensity, periods of 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year can be chosen to make sense of a subject. Ozzeon (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The preparation of the first review will involve a lot of work, and I cannot imagine that the result of this will be ready for voting before November/December. Probably the next reviews will be less complex and the whole process can be scheduled at a fixed time of the year, perhaps September or October. And yes, during the first review UCoC text should be voted too, finally. --Civvì (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a review should start ca 8 months after the first U4C was elected. It indeed could be used to establish community support for the UCoC text, although there are some challenges how to organize the process (the devil's advocate will always protest whatever the Foundtaion does, that's eir job). Should there be 3 options to vote for: new UCOC, old UCOC, no UCOC? For me this isuue is less hot than it is for some others. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first annual review should start after 6 months of electing the members. 6 months is good time for the new members to settle in and consider the existing document to ensure adequate amendment and review where necessary. For me, I don't think this process can be used to establish community support because it will be too early for members to decide on it. Ugwulebo (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be at least 6 months which will put it around November this year and yes I think it should also be used to establish community support. I think we should have the review process take longer than 2 months to ensure a more finished text, but in some ways a shorter review period with more reviews in the near future can also be considered. I don't think any review with a target date will achieve a clean and clear consensus but we can always move towards it without sacrificing protection for our editors and contributions. RXerself (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half year seems reasonable to me, if everything goes well. —Borschts^Talk 11:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first review should be carried out around December 2024. We also need to consider the amount of work needed to do this type of work and meanwhile try to understand what can be improved in the U4C charter (but surely also on UCoC) after the first few months of operation. --Superpes15 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting user rights versus building an encyclopaedia?

Do you think that there might be a conflict between Wikipedia's objective - to build an encyclopaedia - and the UCoC's objective - to impose minimum standards of behaviour? To be clearer: in a dispute between two editors involving the application of the UCoC (or the application of your home wiki's code of conduct), which question holds greater importance to you: "Who is right, who is wrong (according to the UCoC/local code of conduct)?" or "Which of the two editors is more useful to the encyclopedia?" Should we always be fair to all users, or should our collective goal prevail in case of conflict with editors' rights? Deontology or consequentialism, legalism or pragmatism? --Gitz6666 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think it's important to remember that many projects have goals other than to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the only project. Generalizing the question, I think it important to remember that the UCoC is a minimum set of standards. It is intentionally designed to be easier to meet than the many additional standards many developed projects have for their users. So, if a user cannot meet a minimum set of standards, the collaborative nature of our projects - which require dealing with other people - might not be the best way for that user to contribute to free knowledge. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several constraints to collecting and presenting free knowledge (the greater goal), one is keeping up the motivation of volunteers (maximising positive factors of content creation), another is a minimum standard of how to treat each other (minimising negative factors). The latter serves the first. There is no sufficient justification for long-term problematic behaviour in a community, because there are many stakeholders affected. Not even with the most competent or productive editors. A competent or productive editor does not get more strikes in theory. However, in practice, relationships can cloud judgement and somebody well known or connected can sometimes get away with more, even though this is unfair. Competence and warmth should appear simultaneously, at least to some degree. --Ghilt (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two goals are not in conflict. Following conduct rules are important anyway, and that's sufficient reason to favour them. But speaking from experience, applying double standards based on "experience" will be a fast way to drive many contributors away from our projects. I have seen dozens of newer editors stop editing directly because of "productive users" whose conduct issues were not addressed in time. Even for "usefulness", I'd argue that the net impact from one toxic person is worse, simply because we're losing out on the Opportunity cost by raw numbers (People who would have become productive long term contributors of the project otherwise). I feel very strongly about holding our longer term contributors to at least the same standards that we impose on a first time editor, not lesser. Fairness is important for the continued thriving of communities. Soni (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the two are not in conflict. The rationale and the aim (plus the application and enforcement) of the UCoC is to impose a minimum set of behavioural standards that users should (and must follow), and breaching the UCoC would have long breached the Terms of Use (even at the version without the UCoC mention). As seen by a lot of conflict resolution cases handed by ArbCom, it may sometimes hand over a two-way restrictions. I do assume that processing the U4C cases may lead to similar outcomes - there is nearly 0 cases where the guilt is straightforward (unless it is a systematic failure), and for those cases that are not systematic, it normally requires a two-way restriction - for those that are systematic, then it is easier to place restrictions.

Furthermore, I don't see how the two questions - right/wrong and useful/less useful question be contradictory. If there is a user who is wrong (in your sense) and more useful to build an encyclopaedia, it is, in the long run, still detrimental to the goals as the behaviour of that user is ultimately detrimental to building an inclusive collaborative online repository of knowledge. 1233 （T / C） 04:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other candidates here. I don't see a conflict in that while we should be striving for both objectives, ultimately a contributive editor that doesn't meet UCoC's objectives isn't what the community wants. The community has reiterated this several times, by globally banning several users that are at least partially useful to Wikimedia's objectives but have conduct issues that ultimately make them a liability. Leaderboard (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical scenarios - such as what if a prolific contributor violates the UCoC, may seem to prove that there exist contradictions in creating and enforcing UCoC. I think this comes down to measuring harm, and I find it hard to believe that people who clearly violate the UCoC would still be a net positive to the project. Not just the apparent harm done to the target of the UCoC violation, but the implicit harm to the community and environment. For example, giving the impression that experienced contributors can get away with toxic behavior can lead to negative effects on the community as a whole. So I don't think this is a debate between deontology and consequentialism, because consequentialism does not mean ignoring the potential harm UCoC violations can bring to a project. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia without rules would be like a maze without an exit. There may be many paths and information, but they wouldn't lead you anywhere. While the main goal is to create an encyclopedia, it's important to do so within a framework of rules. Ozzeon (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In these cases you can't be pragmatic, you can't ignore a user's behavior just because he is an important user or has great contributions, because one bad user can cause many other users to leave and the loss will be greater, so you must stick to the rules no matter what and without any exceptions.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 13:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the two goals are in conflict, Wikimedia projects are collaborative projects where all editors work together for a common goal. To do this, communities need a healthy and pleasant environment; conflict and bad behavior are acids that silently erode communities. The feeling that adding "good content" is a free pass to circumvent or ignore conduct rules costs a lot of resources, time, endless discussions, conflict, and ultimately drives away many more "less noisy" users than one might think. --Civvì (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, UCOC applies to different types of projects, not only wikipedia. The purpose of commons is ultimately NOT building an encyclopaedia, but collecting free files with an educational value. The purpose of wiktionary is ultimately NOT building an encyclopaedia either. I do not see any major conflict between the goals of a project, and the protecting user rights or the UCOC. A banned harasser will not contribute anymore. This can indeed be loss, but does NOT have to be. Some harassers also produce mostly valid content, whereas others produce very poor quality eating away other's time. Even worse, the activity of a harasser prevents other users from contributing. Thus, useful contributions must never serve as an argument to disregard or excuse toxic behaviour. But they could open for unblocking sooner if the user asks for pardon. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a conflict between Wikipedia's objective and the UCoC objective because they both serve different purposes. One has to do with ethics of the movement while the other has to do with a specific wiki and building that wiki. We should be fair to all users because the wiki space has users from different backgrounds and ideology. When we need to discipline users for wrong doings irrespective of the wiki, we have to do that and when there should be fair hearing, we have to do that to ensure that every user is carried along in the movement. Ugwulebo (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're describing an argument between two editors, I would consider the fact that the argument is over the Code of Conduct to be moot. If I were honored to be on the U4C, I would strongly advise other committee members that we should stay out of it, and leave the etire thing up to the discretion of En Wiki Admins per [[1]] and [[2]]. I believe the U4C needs to trust projects to handle their own affairs and only step in when absolutely necessary even if the users in question are ostensibly calling out the Code of Conduct. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a person can be considered more useful for a Wikimedia project when they cannot help in creating a good environment for other people to also develop the project, create a comfortable environment for other editors and instead actively making other editors uncomfortable. In a case I mentioned in my candidate statement, among the parties in the dispute was an administrator, and I held them accountable for absence of communication to an editor. I don't think when you are deemed to have been more useful to the site project then you have a privilege at your behaviours. I think it is instead that if you have been more of a useful editor that you should have been more familiar with how a site project should be able to support an environment where sustainability of other editors, and therefore the project, is guaranteed. RXerself (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were only possible to create an encyclopaedia if the rights of users were violated in the process, then the encyclopaedia could not and should not exist. Users must be treated fairly. Nevertheless, users will of course always leave the project because they themselves perceive a decision as not being fair to them and it will always be necessary to exclude users from the project who perceive this exclusion as unfair. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said many times, U4C needs to be as uniform as possible. It is not possible to make a question of evaluating utility with respect to behavior on conduct. If there is a violation of the UCoC by a more experienced user, we still cannot say that that user is more useful than another. Everyone is of fundamental importance on wiki and must be treated equally (from the IPs to the "elderly" user). --Superpes15 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Elections

There have been questions about the seat assignment methodology and the home wiki limit with respect to U4C. Since the U4C will be extremely involved in any changes to the Charter, what specific changes (if any), would you like in the next U4C elections? What is your most important priority to preserve in any elections? Soni (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would just get rid of any region and home-wiki rules and make it "community-at-large" for all. The reason is that while diversity is important, putting hard restrictions on how many people from a certain area/wiki can be part of the U4C is rather short-sighted. Similarly, it wouldn't be nice (for the candidate or the community) for someone to be implicitly labelled a "diversity member". In other words, I'd like selection to be completely based on merit, which I'd call as the most important priority to preserve. Another thing I'd like to possibly change is the 2-year period by default - it's not clear to me why the duration is set so long (and why some other communities like en.wiki's ArbCom also use this period) - personally I think one year is better. I also think making the voting process more public (somewhere on the lines of Steward elections) would be nice to have from the view of community involvement - the current system using SecurePoll feels a bit on the secretive side. Finally, I would consider making it easier to remove members that are completely inactive or are making no meaningful effort to participate (even though section 3.2 does provide a removal mechanism, it can take more than a month which I think can be too long). This is because the UC4C cannot even vote if there aren't enough members, and we've had negative precedent (in the Ombuds) where cases were taking too long to process because many of the members didn't seem to be active. Leaderboard (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will prefer removing the home-wiki rules, or at least enact it in a way that only applies to community-at-large seats only and not including regional seats in the mix, which complicates things (and creates an unintended vote issue effect as seen in this election). I think that there have been discussions to move away from SecurePoll, and I'm open to such changes. However, there may be other issues (even steward elections were discovered being rigged when the candidate is in itself affected by local systematic failures).

Some issues may not be discovered until it is running, so I am keeping my opinion open to any proposed changes, as long as it does not change the principle, as stated in my candidate statement, rules change but principles shouldn't. There are rationale behind regional rules (which seems not challenged to the point which changes my opinion), but the home wiki rule, in its current form, seems to be too arbitrary. 1233 （T / C） 06:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My priority number 1 would be to achieve the community vote on the UCoC itself, to finally get a ratification from the major stakeholder, which is also the group most affected by it. Well obviously the charter also needs to be clarified (as in the links in your question), as priority 2. The home wiki rule and the seat assignment methodology need to be reviewed. The method of election is not so important for me, as both procedures, which are 'voting openly with comments' or 'voting secretly via Securepoll', have their advantages and disadvantages in regards to transparency (Securepoll is not transparent and less informative), public opinion bias (reading other people's comments right before voting can cause group think) and niceness (voting with comments is often not pleasant for the candidate). Regarding inactivity, we will also need to review the current setting - will it work? --Ghilt (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point about inactivity. We will almost certainly get committee members dropping out or just becoming inactive. I don't think we have any inactivity rules yet, what will be your personal threshold for those? Soni (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quorum of 50% for decisions means that 8 members need to be active and agree on the measures in the ideal case where there is a consensus. If 12 out of 16 are active, reaching the 50 % quorum of 8 votes means that we effectively need to reach a 66.6 % quorum (8 out of 12 active members) for a decision, which makes decisions more difficult. If only 10 out of 16 are active, we effectively need to reach 80 % (8 out of 10 active members) for a decision. If only 8 are active, we need to be unanimous for a decision. Below 8 active members the U4C is unable to reach a decision. Now the U4C can kick out inactive members with a 66.6 % quorum, but this is a harsh procedure. Alternatively, there could be an inactivity rule that the 50 % quorum for decisions would be relative to the current number of active members. For example, if there is no response in 2 weeks, that member would temporarily receive an inactive status which ends with a response from that member. So, in the end, the 50 % quorum for decisions would stay, but become relative to the number of active members. --Ghilt (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously have concerns about the homewiki rule and I have expressed elsewhere that I am glad the UCoC itself will finally have a chance to be ratified by the community. Beyond those I'm reluctant to say too much about what might need to be changed before the U4C even starts. There is so much work to be done ot make the U4C Charter and the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines a reality and so who knows what might be the high priority items once the committee starts to function. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Barkeep put in the section linked, the homewiki limit was supposed to be removed. So if this doesn't get removed in this election, this should change for the next election. I'm also unsure about whether filling in the regional seats before CAL seats is the best methodology, but the election next year would only run for CAL candidates as CAL seats are single year and regional seats are two years, (so the next elections may just be renewing the regional seats or the CAL seats) so it appears that that is only for the first election. I also fully agree with Barkeep's comment above. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of a different home wiki rule: no more than 6 seats can be assigned to english-language wikipedia, no more than 8 seats can be assigned to english mono lingual wikimedia projects, no more than 3 seats can be assigned to any other mono lingual project, no more than 3 seats can be assigned to an international project like commons or wikidata each, and no more than 12 seats can be assigned to the following five projects combined: english, spanish, german language wikipedias, commons, and wikidata. With the current rule all regional seats could be assigned to the english language wikipedia and the at-large seats could be assigned to german and spanish language wikipedias, commons and wikidata - so that only the 5 largest projects are actually represented in the U4C. Without a home wiki rule all seats could be assigned to wikipedia projects or mono lingual english language projects and more than 2/3 to the english-language wikipedia alone. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to "ensure that U4C represents the diversity of the movement", we need clear criteria which, in my opinion, cannot only be geographical and must ensure that competent candidates from smaller projects also have a fair chance of being elected. I do not have a recipe for this, but somehow limiting the number of members from the same project is one possible method.--Civvì (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My most important priority to preserve in any election is to ensure fairness and equal representation. The wiki space is very wide comprising of volunteers from different part of the world. I would suggest that in subsequent elections, there should be more seats to represent some regions, groups and countries. 2 seats may not fully give a good representation. An even representation will ensure that peculiarities from countries and groups are represented which will lead to a more robust and well represented U4C committee. Ugwulebo (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the next election I would like to see more candidates get involved earlier. The election rules are written to weed out a large number of candidates, but this election had only 19 for most of the run. I think the next election needs an ad budget and marketing. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own answers for them are in the discussion itself, aka keeping 'support percentage' priority order even if we add other restrictions to seats. I was convinced by Ghilt's arguments on activity and we will need rules to moderate that as well. As for homewiki rules, I care about whether the stakeholders (community most importantly) know how things will be run. This needs to happen regardless of what specific rules we end up on. Soni (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the need of more reviews and the subsequent ratification of the review by the community, I think it remains to be seen as for the issues brought up by other candidates. I think if the home wiki limits and regional seats end up impede the work of the committee, it deserves to be reviewed. But at the same time I know community members who got replied that WMF or existing committees in the movement right now are not familiar to the local setting of their problem, and then no further action was taken beside saying that. Of course the regional seats are in no way fully representative of every country or every culture so what is the difference than not having it at all, but I want to see how this one going to work. RXerself (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd agree to make an annual appointment and a maximum of two users per homewiki. I would change the issue of choosing the homewiki, since it should be considered the wiki in which one is most active in the last year for U4C purposes, otherwise I could have chosen any other project to also allow the election of other users from itwiki. We cannot make this body very bureaucratic or with a local vision of situations, but it is necessary that users from all projects are involved, and that as many points of view as possible are brought into the committee. It could be dangerous to have a local vision for such a large and ambitious project. --Superpes15 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Qualities

What do you think are the (at most three) relevant qualities for an ideal/good member of the U4C? Why? And how have you demonstrated such qualities? 1233 （T / C） 04:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency, curiosity, adherence to principles. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say integrity is one - reasoning for this is fairly obvious with the additional note that U4C members are expected to be unbiased and detect when there's a risk that they cannot (and recuse). This is a principle I've held throughout my time at Wikimedia (and elsewhere), and I haven't run into any issues there either. Another important factor is activity - as I've said a couple of times before in this election, members are expected to be active since otherwise it not only creates a backlog and holds up cases, if there aren't enough members the U4C cannot vote at all. Now looking at my personal situation, it's no secret that I've been on-and-off throughout the years, and I've had many periods of inactivity as well. However, not only were the communities okay with my holding admin rights despite this inactivity, I've been pretty responsive to pings/emails/talk page queries (as my userpage says). This isn't going to be the case with U4C - I'd be expected to be upfront when I won't be active and resign if necessary. Finally, some level of breadth/depth is expected amongst the members in terms of Wikimedia experience - while I think a lot of what one needs as a U4C member can be learned on the go, there's a certain level of baseline experience that I think is required, below which members will struggle to effectively contribute despite good intentions. In my case, I've been a Wikimedia member for 10+ years, have depth in terms of my admin status at two wikis, and breadth by interacting and helping at other wikis (amongst others). And again, other members can satisfy this in different ways - there isn't a "one-size-fits-all" answer to how someone can satisfy this provision. Leaderboard (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good member of the U4C should be able to empathize and understand different perspectives. This is probably related to what Leaderboard suggests as breadth/depth of Wikimedia experience. This is a diverse movement with people from very different backgrounds, and a functioning committee should recognize that, in order to apply the code of conduct most effectively to benefit the movement. For me, having contributed and interacted with communities of several communities (enwiki, zhwiki, to a lesser extent commons, wikidata, and wikifunctions) helps with that. While activity is a baseline in my opinion, a good U4C should be able to recognize systemic failures and be prepared to act on them. I've been quite vocal about systemic issues in zhwiki (including using voting for article assessments as well as a lack of consistent response to disruptions to discussions), so I hope to be able to address systemic issues if elected. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To pick three out of the most important qualities, although there are more: diligent and fair judgement, attentive communication and flexible problem solving. Sorry for stretching the answer with adjectives ;) Researching conflicts and evaluating them in regards to the interests and conflict modes of the people directly involved and the people affected helps making a better judgement. Attentive communication helps to understand the interests, conflict modes and the difference between what is said (the content aspect of the conflict) and what is not (the relationship aspect of the conflict and also opinions outside the Overton window). And finally, flexible problem solving is a response to the facts, that every conflict has an individual signature and methods evolve over time. All three have been in use for many years at the arbcom and i am still far from being where i want to be. --Ghilt (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avoidance of conflict of interest, fair judgment, sane level of adherence to policies. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The three most ideal qualities for a U4C member are experience in a wiki, leadership quality, and fair judgment. As an individual, I have experience in English Wikipedia as I joined the Wikimedia space in 2020 through the one lib one ref campaign for African librarians on Wikipedia. I have been an active contributor at both local and international campaigns from my community in Nigeria. I served as part of the pioneer members of the Wikimedia Nigeria User group Grant committee who handled the usergroup Micro grants application, supervision, monitoring and disbursement to qualified applicants to undergo Wikimedia projects. Through my involvement in Wikimedia projects and as a librarian in my home country, I and some volunteers in my local community have trained more than 600 participants with over 60% of them active in the Wikimedia space in my home country and beyond. More details about these trainings can be found on my userpage.User:Ugwulebo page Also, I have handled conflict issues in my community and have demonstrated fair hearing by ensuring everyone is carried along to improve the Wikimedia community in my host country while bearing in mind the Wikimedia policy for openness, equal representation and friendly space. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The three most important qualities for a member of the U4C are an understanding of what a systemic failure is, an ability to comprehend jurisdiction and a willingness to learn from misunderstandings. In this campaign I have shown that, however unorthodox, I understand what a systemic failure that the U4C would have oversight of is. I have struggled, but in good faith tried to understand the jurisdiction of the U4C. Most importantly, I have learned over the course of the campaign the scope and jurisdiction limits of the U4C and the Admins on both En Wiki and Meta Wiki have taken great pains to show me the limits and duties of the U4C and of a candidate. I think I would be a much greater asset to the U4C now than when I started out as a candidate, and I hope everyone's efforts to help me improve in this capacity are not in vain. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally highly value activity and proactivity, transparency and accountability, fairness and honesty. No matter how much we talk here, our U4C will be toothless if committee members never actually engage or tackle difficult matters. They will need to be proactive both in taking on cases, and in keeping the community the first priority. The U4C as a whole needs to do away with some of barriers caused by the archaic and closed committees. To execute UCoC effectively, the community needs to see U4C working, and accept the need for UCoC/U4C. Finally, it requires U4C members who will actually be fair; our projects have been burnt out by unfair secret dealings often enough. In my answers, I have attempted to hold all of those qualities, especially honesty. Soni (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a U4C member should want to hear about problems. At the first instance that you don't want to hear when people come up to you, you won't be able to share empathy or to communicate the problems to other members or to the community, or to give judgement or to process an issue because you are not even hearing it. A violation of the UCoC may implicate sanctions ranging from a reprimand to an account, to derecognition of an affiliate. People in the community should not be discouraged to report a very convoluted issue with varying implications, so committee members at least should want to hear. I think a member should also be able to understand the nature of Wikimedia projects, the volunteer communities that build them, and its conventions, and therefore to act and make decisions based upon them. When you are making a decision you should not only consider the rules that gave you the rights to do that but also to consider the subjects of that decision whether it is a person or a community. I also think it should be the ability to think. RXerself (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing when to recuse oneself appropriately, not allowing judgments to be influenced by personal interests or discrimination, and always respecting policies. I believe if a U4C member fails to adhere to any one of these, it would prevent the U4C from functioning and embodying integrity in its role. —Borschts^Talk 11:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Humility (also defined as the ability and willingness to understand other points of view and not dwell on a single or local mentality), accountability (which also includes transparency, reliability, good faith and activity) and flexibility (not rigidly applying the policies, but understanding the situation well, by evaluating and accepting all points of view, which goes back to the first point) --Superpes15 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analytical skills, judgement and some knowledge of how things work in projects --Civvì (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overburden?

Some candidates (I haven't checked all, but of some I know) are sysops and also sitting arbs in their projects. Do you believe you can give a similar/fair amount of energy to the U4C like you do for your homewiki? There were several unaddressed questions regarding the charter at the time of the voting process and at least one candidate was involved in the U4C process. I was told they were read but apparently to date still not addressed, as the same uncertainties remain and no explanations were provided. Here a link to the talk page were the concerns were raised. What would be your solution to the issue of people not answering/addressing questions?User451819913 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that anyone applying for U4C must first of all guarantee activity to it, I personally would consider it a priority over other functions, and therefore I would focus on it first and then dedicate time to other functions. I think in general that questions must always be answered and the right guidance must be provided. --Superpes15 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's an easy answer to your last question. The way U4C is structured, it does not have powers of its own. If a specific other committee or WMF was not addressing concerns, U4C cannot do that much to force them; even this page's talk still has unaddressed issues for the U4C to resolve. Ultimately, it'll be a community thing about holding the committee accountable. If I'm seated, I'll try to guarantee no concern will be completely ignored; though said answers may end up being privately given or unsatisfactory. For the next few months, there will be a gigantic checklist for U4C to go through, so I would hope all candidates who applied do actually spend said energy here. Soni (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, it depends. However, I do hope people will be present as long as they can. We all have real-life burdens, don't we?

I won't give a definite yes to all commitments (or else it will become the Q1 scenario - is it ethical to make promises that will break). However, one should resign from their position when they feel they're actually bringing more harm (in this case, harm can come from inactivity) than good. Sometimes, escalation may help, but it still depends on the severity of issue and the ability for them to resolve it in a peaceful way.

If the U4C is in that shape then I think there will already be a public meta RfC discussing this issue. 1233 （T / C） 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U4C would do nothing in an immediate sense. There are two options here; either bring the issue up when the U4C schedules annual review and amendment or receive the issue from another project committee after their local review. I have a hard time believing some ignored questions would rise to the level of a systemic issue, which has been described as akin to U4C's "original jurisdiction". So, there's really only one practical option, which is discuss it at the next annual review and amendment. This is simply not an issue the U4C is likely to be able to address directly, although it's technically possible in an edge case. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, U4C is prioritised. And for the second question: as a first step, I would leave a reminder with a user notification that answers are still missing. Assuming good faith, they might just not have had the free time get an opinion of everyone in the group. That can sometimes take time. --Ghilt (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the work while on U4C would be quite different from the work I do on my homewikis. Responding to concerns and issues people bring up would probably be most of U4C's work. Some of those work can get blocked on discussions between U4C members, waiting on people's responses. In a sense, U4C is more involuntary than work on my homewiki. If I was to be elected, I would try to prioritize U4C work so as to not block any decisions on my part, and try to nudge others if they haven't been responsive. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect to have the time required for the U4C, and don't have a lot to add to what other users have already said. Regarding the second part, I'm not quite sure on what your actual question is - whom are you referring to when you say "people"? Leaderboard (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely feel I will have the time for the U4C. I also have a track record of being high activity. In terms of enwiki, if elected, I will either go inactive on enwiki Arbcom or resign. It's more likely that I resign. As evidence of my being response you can be seen on the page you linked to, I actually was monitoring it and responding prior to voting opening. After that I felt it more important for people to have a chance to give their say without comment from the U4CBC. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for each candidate

0xDeadbeef

You've created your account at enwiki where you hold sysop permissions, yet you chose zhwiki as your homewiki, why not enwiki? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there was some confusion when I read the instructions to select a home wiki. I did consider both enwiki and zhwiki as my homewikis as I contribute actively on both projects. I have more experience in creating and establishing consensus for policies at zhwiki, and there are many links to zhwiki discussions in my candidate statement, so I felt it was appropriate to put zhwiki. After reading this from an ElectCom member I realized that my reading is incorrect. Therefore I have changed my homewiki to enwiki, which should probably make more sense. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can a person who calls others "sick in the brain" and "shut up" on Chinese Wikipedia[3] ensure that UCoc's policy of "Mutual respect"、"Civility" are implemented?--日期20220626 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.. This is probably the meanest comment I have sent throughout my 3.5 years of being here. To be honest, I think "sick in the brain" is not really the best translation, as I don't think there is an English phrase that is analogous to this. Probably "braindead" would be a better translation? Anyways. There is some context that is missing from this question, so here we go.

I nominated a user on Chinese Wikipedia for the upcoming admin election
日期20220626 repeatedly questions my choice for the candidate, despite me giving my own reasons for why I believe the candidate is a net positive. There are other participants who at that discussion who suggested that this repeated questioning appears as an attack on my character.
When I tried to have a constructive discussion with another user, 日期20220626 felt the need to ask me for specific examples when I made a point about what I felt about the community at zhwiki. I didn't think specific examples were necessary for my point.
I asked 日期20220626 to not comment unless they have anything constructive to say, as I already got frustrated from the exchange.
Despite that, 日期20220626 replied to me again, resulting in my less-than-friendly response asking them to not reply again.

I think the problem with civility politics is that it only works when there is a way to resolve the issue in a civil manner. Chinese Wikipedia has a systemic problem of not responding to disruption appropriately. 日期20220626 has repeatedly engaged in disruption, and hounding me and the person I nominated as admin across different venues for discussion. This does not excuse me for behaving in an incivil manner, but I don't think focusing on these instances of strong language, while ignoring the larger systemic issues at hand is productive.

This is all I can come up for now, might followup later. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some further thoughts on this matter. For one, I don't think the U4C should appoint people who have never swore or been mean to others for once in their lives. I don't think it is realistic. And I don't think it helps. Mean or rude comments exist not just because the people behind them just want to be rude or mean, but it often comes from strong feelings they may have towards a person, a thing, or an opinion. If a person has always been nice, it would be hard for them to empathize with people who are not being nice, because they wouldn't understand why people would not be nice. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the behavior of the person you nominated is not in line with UCoc's policy. It doesn't matter if he scolds other Wikipedians once or twice. That person curses people almost every day, and has been banned many times on Chinese Wikipedia for insulting other people, so do you think it is in line with UCoc's policy for a person to curse Wikipedian editor every day? Today he called another Wikipedia editor was livestock（牲口） in Chinese Wikipedia telegram group again. Does the Wikimedia Foundation allow a Wikipedia editor to insult other Wikipedians on and off the site every day?日期20220626 (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the Wikimedia Foundation, nor will I ever be able to singlehandedly decide who is violating the UCoC and who is not. This only originates from a disagreement about whether the candidate I have nominated as admin is a net positive or not. If you would like to report the user for misconduct, you may do so at the appropriate venues. As this is becoming off-topic for my candidacy at U4C, anyone can feel free to contact me at my user talk if they would like to hear more from me about this particular issue in Chinese Wikipedia. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@日期20220626 牲口 maybe translated as "brute", instead of livestock. Just a head-up after I decided to retired from that community when I got noticed about such a thing. Lemonaka (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see wikt:en:牲口, synonym is wikt:en:畜生 which says "(derogatory) beast; bugger; contemptible person; brute; bastard". I have not ever used this word, nor have I ever endorsed the use of this word. So this is quite irrelevant here. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a notice to @日期20220626 about the accuracy of the translation. I've translated numerous sentences here and just a little bit more alerted then others about translation. Lemonaka (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1233

You've written in your candidate statement „a UCoC, in my opinion, should never happen. It is because of very egregious events that led to the UCoC being imposed“. Why shouldn't we have universally agreed behavioural rules as a minimum standard for all existing and all future WMF projects, just like we have other global policies? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Terms of Use, in 2012, have already governed and laid out a minimum standard for behaviour that should be universally agreed (see related section of the Terms of Use, in its 2012 version).

This is why I think the UCoC should technically never happen - not because we shouldn't have such rules, but rather we already have it and people should have actually followed the terms of use.

In fact, it is due to those events that happened between 2013 and 2021/22 across at least two different projects that led to the need for the creation of the UCoC.

Thus, I consider the UCoC are something that is here because of the need for the ToS to be reiterated because of these very unfortunate events, and my opposition is rather to those events (and the outcome, which I consider to be the UCoC).

Similar to some people's opposition to the establishment of law enforcements, it is not the opposition of order and/or support to criminals, bur rather people should actually behave - we already have laws telling one person not to do something already, and people should follow. It is due to people not following the laws that required the presence of law enforcements, and similarly, it is due to people not following civility rules in ToS that led to the UCoC be imposed/introduced through it's current form. 1233 （T / C） 17:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you please clarify your those events that happened between 2013 and 2021/22 across at least two different projects. What are you referring to? Gitz6666 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2021 Trust & Safety bans, similar ones in 2022, and systematic abuses from one user that affected the Croatian Wikipedia. These show systematic failures on the projects, or at least local inability to handle such cases because they are either too complex or too hard to resolve peacefully locally. At least issue 1 and 3 are systematic. 1233 （T / C） 04:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

787IYO

Akwugo

You've described three situations in the „personal experience“-section of your candidate statement. Can you elaborate how you addressed those situations and if you managed to resolve them? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment Yes, I have been in a situation where an experience editor misused words on a newbie because she wasn't able to catch up on the session. Once a newbie I knew how this could lead to discouragement and hindering knowledge equity....I solved this reminding the fellow about the code of conduct and the friendly space policy, I also educated the newbies on their stand as Wikimedians.

Funding I was denied the benefits I was supposed to get as a volunteer as a result of joining new. This has been my reason for encouraging conflict resolution in communities where newbies can put up their complaints. This experience thought me a lesson and I always stood on this gap never to allow other New editors to face same situation.

Projects I always organize project based on the need to involve the new editors. one of the strategic directive is Knowledge equity and I want to involve others to share in the sum of all human knowledge. Akwugo (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49

Hello Barkeep (and thanks for applying). If elected, you will likely be among the more experienced members of U4C. If I counted correctly, it's very likely that some of the members in the Committee will have no administrative experience on Wikimedia projects. Based on anecdotal experience, a significant number of qualified people did not apply, for various reasons. Will this be a problem for a functioning U4C, and what's your plan for it? Soni (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this question. It's something I've given a lot of thought to and hope you will forgive a long response.
I am optimistic but concerned about this topic. I do worry that the committee will not have enough experience to truly handle the work ahead. So that is my concern. Optimistically, I do not think administrative experience is the only kind of experience that is useful. For instance, Waltercolor is not an administrator but I had the opportunity to work with her over the last three years and the work that she contributed made both the enforcement guidelines and charter better.
There are some very interesting candidates running. If elected I know that I will be able to learn from the other members of the committee based on the skills, knowledge, and experience they have. I also think I will have experience, skills, and knowledge that will be helpful for them. Hopefully, they will see me as someone they can learn from.
As for a "plan" I don't think it's for me alone to come up with a plan. Instead I can write about my commitment do the work and what kind of work I want to do. For instance, given my experience writing policy, procedures, and communications, I anticipate doing a lot of work with those areas if I am elected to the U4C. This has been work I've done on the English Arbitration Committee. This was true even when I was new and there were many other experienced arbs I was learning from. For me this is another example of how inexperience doesn't have to mean no ability.
Finally, I also have hope that the community will not vote in people just because they need to vote for "someone". Instead I hope the community will only vote "approve" for candidates who they think are qualified - however each person defines that word. I hope voters do this even if this means we have fewer than 16 members on the first U4C (I also will be voting for more than 8 candidates, the minimum quorum, so I don't think the U4C will be too small). In the end if I'm elected whoever else is elected would be my peer. We would all be equals (unless, I guess, if the committee were to decide to elect some kind of chair). If elected I would be excited to collaborate and work with them knowing that we both had the trust of the broader community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Barkeep. I notice you mention the importance of the principle of subsidiarity. I would be interested in your thoughts on how to handle when that principle is failing. Inevitably, our projects over-represent people with higher levels of social privilege, which means that functionaries (admins, ArbCom members, Stewards, U4C members) are more likely to be able to understand the perspectives of majority groups.
Some minoritised wikimedians believe that current processes fail to address when they feel mistreated in comparison to others — such as the recent situation on the French-language Wikipedia, where some LGBTQ+ wikimedians feel they are being bullied, but that the majority of people involved in conversations in the Bistro haven't understood their concerns. Do you have thoughts on how we can balance subsidiarity with avoiding a tyranny of the majority? — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 18:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of projects where the conditions are difficult for LGTBQ+ Wikimedians. We can see that with this current report about Swahili Wikipedia. I anticipate handling such these kinds of issue to come before the U4C and so I am hesitant to say too much now - especially disputes I do not feel fully informed about. I will say that I have seen the consensus process some projects use equally lead to simultaneous tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority (minoritarianism) because of how difficult it is to change anything. This difficulty to change can especially penalize groups whose voices have not been heard historically in decision making even when the community has come to understand their perspective and needs. Correcting that historical bias is an important element of what I mean when I say that I will listen carefully to others' perspectives and cultures should I be elected. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you act if a party is accused with no diffs? Or like the case becomes sort of a hitting a man/person without a stick?User451819913 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence is expected. Accusing someone of something with no evidence could be its own issue. That evidence will normally come from diffs. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU

Borschts

Chinmayee Mishra

You selected Commons (the wiki you created your account at) as home wiki. However you could (by the number of edits) also declare wikisource as home wiki for the purposes of U4C. If you look through the list of candidates, you will find that most of them have wikipedia as home wiki, some have commons or wikidata (the two projects that support all other wikis), but only one has wikibooks as home wiki - and no other MW projects are represented by the eligable candidates. If you declared wikisource your home wiki you would actually double the visibility of the (especially with the general public outside of Wikimedians) lesser known Wikis in the election, and if you get elected, in the Committee (which in my opinion would strengthen the committee and show its diversity). Is there a specific reason for choosing Commons and not Wikisource? --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over my contributions and raising this question, C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) . Certainly I like all the WIkimedia Projects and appreciate the value they add to the knowledge movement, but Wikimedia Commons has my heart. The platform itself gives me "Home" feeling-peace and curiosity to learn-explore-support more. I value both commons and Wikisource equally and really enjoy contributing to both. I will continue here with your advice, and I feel it will be best way for the U4C purpose. Warmly, Chinmayee--Chinmayee Mishra (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a sensible explanation. Thanks. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chinmayee. You were involved in Wikiconference India 2023 (thank you for that). The South Asian communities are in a unique position of being both one community and a dozen different communities combined. Though I missed the conference myself for reasons, I was curious what the most challenging parts of being a T&S member there was. Can you talk about any specific learnings the team carried over from 2016 or realised in 2023? Soni (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chinmayee Mishra, thanks for applying. The psychological support is listed as one of the ""changes & actions" proposed by the 1° recommendation Provide for safety and inclusion and during the WikiWomen Camp in New Delhi, the creation of a WikiWomen+ Care Network led by the community was discussed. These are my two questions.

1) How important is having such a network in your opinion?

2) What are the first steps to take from you point of view?

Thank you in advance for your response. --Camelia (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civvì

You've described your work in the UCoC drafting committee, how do you judge the outcome, is there anything that could have been improved? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this question Johannnes89. It has happened over the years that I have found myself reading comments or answering questions about UCoC thinking that "uhm...that's not exactly what we meant". Whenever a policy needs further explanations and clarifications there is definitely room for improvement. After three years what I am really curious about are implementation, usefulness and “usability” of the document. Are the communities using this baseline to develop policies and how are they doing it? What challenges or difficulties do they face and why? Are there parts of the text which are unclear or confusing? Is it easy to adapt and use in their contexts? Are the examples useful? Do they need more or better ones? Do they need more detail (or perhaps less detail!)? When I read the Section 4.3. of the U4C Charter I think that this first committee will face an enormous (almost frightening) amount of work for the first review. Once the first review will be done then there will probably be a good and meaningful answer to your (and my!) questions. --Civvì (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Civvì, thanks for applying. During the Orsini controversy that led to the failed confirmation of an it.wiki steward, you did not express any concerns about the handling of the Orsini article by it.wiki admins (in UCoC's parlance, a case of "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" and "Abuse of power, privilege, or influence"). However, you argued that the UCoC should have prevented me from sharing public information (diffs) about other users, if I suspected that that information could be leaked to the press. You cited the UCoC's provision on doxing, which is indeed very broad, as it prohibits sharing information concerning their [other contributors'] Wikimedia activity outside the projects. Are you not concerned that your interpretation of that UCoC's provision could limit transparency and hinder public debate about Wikipedia on external platforms like blogs and the press? Arguably, editors should be free to share public information such as diffs with whomever they wish, or do you think this behaviour qualifies as doxxing under the UCoC? --Gitz6666 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If “sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.” leads to the disclosure and exposure of personal data and workplace of a user and results in personal and professional harm then, not only I do not see the value added to "a public debate about Wikipedia" but in my opinion, it can be considered harassment. --Civvì (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. May I suggest that U4C applies the provision on harassment by focusing not only on the effects or consequences of a user's behavior (e.g., "Did it result in personal or professional harm?"), but also on its purpose or intention (e.g., "Was it meant to annoy, upset, or harm another user, or was it intended to provoke public scrutiny on alleged violations of the UCoC and local policies, such as BLP violations, abuse of power, or COI editing?"). Gitz6666 (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Civvì, thanks for applying. Putting together the fact that you participated in the first draft of the UCoC text, that the itwiki community has only recently equipped itself with a translation of the page regarding harassment and in the discussion on the establishment of an ArbCom in itwiki (which itwiki apparently does not feel the need for, despite a block appeal procedure is missing), in addition to having often noticed deserted discussions at the bar on the UCoC etc., I have two questions for you (which connect in more than one point with the question that Gitz asked you before, canceled because they exceeded the maximum number of questions they could ask):

1) who ensures the application of the UCoC in itwiki?

2) based on the fact there is a common practice to say that admins have only one more tastino/button for technological issues (but we know that in addition to this there is a clear disparity in power compared to other users, so much so that the UCoC specifically provides for it in the art. 3.2) and that a few years ago in itwiki the procedures of problematic admins were eliminated (moreover all closed by the same admin with the conclusion "No problems identified, report closed"), if you have ever noticed the behavior in violation of the UCoc of a fellow admin, what have you done: you have discussed on their user page, in the admin ml, you have opened a page for problematic users, you have scolded him in private, you didn't do anything?

Thank you in advance for wour response, --Camelia (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Camelia, I apologize if this will probably be a wall of text but I would like to start by clarifying some inaccuracies.

Harassment: the creation of the harassment guideline was in 2019, I would not call it "recent." It is one of the most recent guidelines among the many which deal with conduct and behavior, some of them date back to the origins of itwiki.

Appeals: What actually is recent is the procedure to appeal blocks, in one and a half months it has been used two times which I think is pretty consistent with the requests which until now have been received mainly through RAA (Admin noticeboard) or via email, but it is a good thing to create a clear and structured procedure to handle request that so far have been dealt in different ways.

Discussions: The page you are linking is an announcement, there is not much to discuss about it. I recollect (sometimes very heated) discussions about conduct with a lot of participants but they date back to some years ago.

Closing of procedures: The procedures were not all closed by the same admin, they only added the comment while they were archiving the page, you may see in the history of that page that all the comments were added on the same day. I guess that as a matter of convenience they simply copied the same sentence making also some mistakes, some of the procedures brought to voluntary removal or to a reconfirmation vote. If you open single procedures you may notice that they were closed by different people and with different outcomes.

Procedure of RFC/admin: the dedicated page was merged with the RFC/users page, this was done back in 2012, you can read the reasons for this in that discussion.

Now to your questions.

I would very much hope that every user does their part to “ensure the application of UCOC in itwiki”, as concerns the unpleasant part of enforcement luckily in dealing with UCoC violations the project can count on the help of a lot of users who report inappropriate behavior on the dedicated noticeboards or spend their time discussing with users or tutoring them. As concerns onwiki violations the ultimate decision to block, protect or revert is of course on the admins, other violations are reported and handled by the appropriate bodies and governance structures.
I usually do not spend my time checking what other admins do, I take it for granted that we are all adults and capable of taking responsibility for our actions (and besides it is not really in the job description of bureaucrats to run around "scolding" admins...). When it happens that I see something I do not agree with I have no hesitation in pointing it out using the means I consider more convenient, appropriate or quicker in that moment. --Civvì (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beh Civvì, I am quite sure that having a policy related to one of the most widespread issues on the Wikimedia projects, after 14 years and because "suggested" to whom on that moment covered the role of T&S liaison, for one of the top 10 Wikipedia language version, is considered "recent" for many users. You know, "scolding" admins is a figuative way to say that from someone beeing one of the first writers and being a candidate for one of the crucial roles regarding the community's health in all movement at this stage, usualy is expected to have greater awareness, responsability, take a stand when assisting to UCoC violations. Saying "I usually do not spend my time checking what other admins do" indicates that it never happened in your presence, right? --Camelia (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Civvi. I find one of your answers slightly confusing, can you elaborate. I do not have a recipe for this, but somehow limiting the number of members from the same project is one possible method.

We do currently have exactly that method in our elections, a limit of 2 elected members from any one project. Are you calling the current methods solid? Or that we need a different recipe to execute it (that you don't have the recipe for)? Can you talk a bit more about the current election structure, with respect to where specifically it meets/does not meet your priorities? Soni (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soni. Sorry for the confusion, maybe I used the wrong words. To me, diversity means finding a way to ensure that in this committee there are members from different geographic areas and also from a variety of projects. At the moment we have a fairly clear geographic criterion, any other method to make sure that candidates from smaller projects have the same chance as candidates from larger projects would be fine for me. What is certain is that the text of the charter needs to be clarified in the part that deals with elections but that of voting methods is not really a subject in which I am an expert. --Civvì (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that makes sense thank you! I wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand anything to language barriers. Soni (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.Suthorn

As a supplement to my candidate page: I mentioned on the candidate page that I was helping to reduce the instability of uploads in the MW software with a video file that could not be uploaded. This has in the meantime been successful, the upload of very large files, but also of smaller affected files, is now much more stable. What does this have to do with Conduct? Clashes sometimes arise because technical errors in software appear unacceptable to affected people. Fixing a technical issue that has existed for 10 years is therefore also helpful in reducing personal confrontations and making it easier to calm existing disputes and tensions. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danotech

DeBolsillo

How should the U4C approach conflict resolution and UCoC enforcement in projects such as the Spanish Wikipedia – mature, with a good number of active users, but no high-level decision making body (such as an ArbCom)? –FlyingAce^✈hello 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghilt

Many members of our homewiki (dewiki) have voiced criticism when the UCOC and the enforcement guidelines have been created, fearing the U4C could have too much power to interfere with our well-established community conflict resolution procedures and our ArbCom's work. What do you think about those concerns? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some concerns were well-founded at the time, in my opinion. One part was voiced in the open letter, asking for more community participation, other issues were to add the right to be heard, the possibility for a revision/appeal, the implementation of best practices and as much transparency as possible in the later stage of a case. These points were addressed by me and others during the UCoC drafting process. The community ratification (vote) of the UCoC was also added later in the process. So i believe, there has been some improvement and there is still work to do, which will show more clearly in the future application of the UCoC. -- Ghilt (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim.ID

You wrote about some arwiki users being afraid to file a complaint against some admins, because your project doesn't have an ArbCom. Do you think more projects (including your homewiki) should try to establish an ArbCom? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely yes, we should have a ArbCom in ArWiki because it is an important issue and also among the movement recommendations. We had a ArbCom in 2007, but it was closed later due to problems related to the idea of permanent members and the necessity of their permanent presence, and the idea needed more discussions in order to develop more policies and rules to avoid to become an absolute authority or be misused, therefore there were many attempts to reactivate it, but all the discussions were long and did not yield results.

Over the past years, we have been using the idea of a "temporary arbitration committee" consisting of 5 or 7 trusted users to investigate cases and make a decisive decision. This is what has currently inspired us to create a policy of arbitration we will try to have it discussed and approved by the community during this year. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 05:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a lower bound though, because a reasonable line of thought would be that wikis too small won't gain from having an ArbCom. Describe that lower bound, and briefly sketch how a wiki in the lower quartile could run with an ArbCom. The reasoning for this question comes from wikis such as en.wikinews, which has an ArbCom that is pretty much never used. Leaderboard (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question, Can you explain more? Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically your reasoning was that "more projects" should have ArbCom. When do you think a wiki is too small to have such a committee? Leaderboard (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, I think the idea of "arbitration" in general is important, especially with decentralized communities like Wikimedia project communities. If someone has a complaint or problem who will solve it? Adminis are not the ones who manage or make decisions on behalf of communities, nor should they be the arbitrators because this creates a monopolization of powers. But arbitration does not necessarily have to be through a permanent ArbCom (like EnWiki) especially if they are small communities, as you mentioned before in en.wikinews they never used, and it also does not make sense to create a committee of 7 members for a community of 30 users for example, so it is better to use the idea of "temporary arbitration committee" It is formed for each issue and then the committee is dissolved. I wish this idea would be generalized to all projects. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 09:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ibrahim, I have a follow up question. Could you give an example project or two to explain where this could work. What is a wiki with a "good size" you consider for "temporary arbcom" or "no arbcom"? And if there is a temporary arbcom, what should be it's purpose/duration? Resolving one single dispute? Or like a court that's "in session" for only a few months yearly? Soni (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni This matter is relative and depends on several factors, not just the size. for example, the size of the problems or cases that will need arbitration, the number of active users, the size of contributions and activity in the project. It also depends on the community itself as there are communities that may reject the idea of a "temporary ArbCom".

The idea of the temporary ArbCom is only to solve the problem (the necessity of having permanent members at all times) like EnWiki's ArbCom. as you know Wikipedia depends on voluntary and it is difficult to force a volunteer (ArbCom's member) to always attend, so the idea of the temporary board is: the community every year choose a list of users by voting who are characterized by integrity and trust. then, as I explained above, when there is an issue, a temporary committee is formed to discuss this issue only, and after that their role ends. We are thinking of implementing this idea on the Arabic Wikipedia, and because it is new none knows whether it will be successful or not, but we will try it and then the experience will be evaluated. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ibrahim. As an an admin & Bureaucrat on Arabic Wikipedia, How would you address instances where community members make statements that undermine the experiences and perspectives of contributors, particularly in sensitive contexts like conflict zones? Additionally, how do you believe the UCoC can be effectively enforced to promote a respectful and inclusive environment for all Wikimedia contributors, regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances?-Nada.FA (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Nada.FA I did not receive your mention. As an admin and bureaucrat I have limited powers, and that is limited to implementing policies. In the event of a clear violation of the policy like (no personal attacks), such as insults or racist words, etc., here the admin intervenes according to the policy.

But in the example you presented, this will be a difficult matter. The admin cannot intervene according to his personal discretion without a clause in the policies even if he believes this is inappropriate behavior, and this requires attention from the communities to develop policies that prevent this. I believe that UCoC will have a major role in the coming period for impulse the communities adjust their policies to comply with the Universal code of conduct. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ibrahim.ID, thank you for your response. We have the UCoC which is applicable to all projects and language editions, do you believe the UCoC is limited and can't prevent such instances? Is enforcing the UCoC not within the scope of users with extended rights? Nada.FA (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nada.FA No, I don't think the UCoC is limited and it won't be limited, maybe my previous comment was brief and didn't explain the whole picture but you can read about (Enforcement Guidelines). Certainly the UCoC will prevent behaviors like you talked about, if you read section 2 (Expected behaviour) it encourages mutual respect, civility and Collegiality. and all users must adhere to these rules. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iwuala Lucy

As a member of the regional grant committee for SSA & MENA, what do you think about this criticism [4] of a project funded last year? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannnes89, Approaching from a neutral point of view, the exasperated undertone of the first critic is quite understandable -considering the fact that all attempt to get the attention of both the defaulters and WMF staff prove abortive. However, I also observed a change in the undertone immediately the responses started coming.

Categorically, I noticed a very diplomatic and intelligent approach in the resolution of the issues raised. The level of diplomacy and openness exhibited by the Program Officer helped quell the already heightened tempo and also set the pace for other WMF staff who also responded constructively and intelligently, leading to the resolution of the issues raised. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J ansari

Hello J ansari, thanks for applying. I do not know how your community works in matter of UCoC and I am curious to know more about it. On your Meta page you have an interesting statement "Every day fight against vandalism". We know that vandalism is a huge issue on our projects, but we also know that the community health is important since relying on empathy and soft skills, is more personal, we have less technical tools to fight it and on it depends a pleasant and collaborative work.

1) can be an eye sensitive to vandalism less sensitive to unhealthy dynamics in your opinion?

2) may an UCoC violation report be considered as an abuse of service pages in your community?

Thank you in advance for your response, --Camelia (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad

You've been an sdwiki admin for 6+ years, what do you think is your most important learning with regard to the UCoC? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Msechu

A user on the Swahili Wikipedia, where you are an administrator, was blocked explicitly for reporting another admin's blatantly anti-queer editing to Meta-Wiki. You justified this block as "protecting our African culture". Given that you are seeking to be on a committee tasked with enforcing the UCOC, can you explain your supporting an action that was clearly in violation of it? Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 14:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional related question: Your message seems to indicate that bringing the issue to Meta at all was a component of the block. Would you locally block people who approach the U4C? Ferret (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderboard

Khunou S

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke081515

You have voiced concerns about lack of community involvement in the UCoC process as one of the initiators of the Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees. Do you feel those concerns have been sufficiently addressed by the WMF? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the community vote about the enforcement guidelines, the following improvement, and a community elected committee (U4C) to enforce that, those concers have been successfully addressed. Added to that, the fact that U4C is not a "regular" instance above the local communities if they have their own arbcoms etc. also improves the situation. As last step, it's important that the U4C acts responsible on it's power to change things in local projects in case of "systemic failure". If there is really a systemic failure it's needed to act, but this shouldn't be used easily, and all other options should be considered before. Otherwise, this will cost the committee a lot of trust and legitimation. That's also why I'd like to be elected to the committee, to make sure that these powers are used responsibly. Best regards, Luke 081515 11:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NANöR

Hi NANöR, thanks for applying. Not knowing what the dynamics related to the UCoC in your language community are, I would love to know more. We know rappresentation is important and the diversity is a value non only in our movement. But we also know that women and the LGBTQIA+ communities, for example, are underrepresented. So, these are my two questions: 1) How supportive is your community in recognizing and promote diversity in your opinion (as per art.2)? I'm refering to empathy towards others (your language community covers different countries in different continents), towards people who lead gender gap and diversity projects, towards women who are applying for adminship etc. 2) What more can be done from you point of view? Thank you in advance for your response. --Camelia (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Camelia.boban. Thank you for your questions and here are my responses:

1) I deeply understand the complexities you are referring to, since my community covers multiple countries and continents. The level of empathy varies by individuals and communities. Online communities' challenges mirror the daily life of women and LGBTQAI+ in the Arabic region. I mean you can find safe and secure avenues to participate and engage in the gender gap, be an admin, and have the representation you are looking for. I, myself, am very committed to the gender gap and bringing more female contributors to Wikimedia and introducing them to policies and guidelines that help them sustain in the movement and progress to leadership. I started my steps in the movement by leading a workshop for Wikigap, and over the years, evolved to support the women lead of an emerging community in Libya. During this journey, I interacted with many women as admins, became admin on Wikisource, faced misconduct that equipped me with personal connections to understand what women need in the community and how the UCoC enforcement can help them. NANöR (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Changes don’t happen overnight. Promoting and recognizing diversity requires empathy. I believe in continuous cultural sensitivity awareness so people can put their feet in other people's shoes. Our community needs to take complaints seriously and challenge stereotypes or discriminatory behaviors against Women and LGBTQIA+.

Providing targeted support and resources for gender gap and diversity projects, as well as initiatives aimed at empowering women to take on leadership roles, such as adminship. This could involve mentorship programs, training sessions, and community-led campaigns.

Supporting the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all contributors.

In my role, I am committed to advocating for these initiatives and working collaboratively with community members and stakeholders to drive positive change. By fostering a culture of empathy, respect, and inclusivity, we can create a Wikimedia community that truly values diversity and empowers individuals from all backgrounds to contribute and thrive. NANöR (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nskjnv

Ozzeon

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates, but you are mentioning off-wiki experience in conflict-resolution. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself unique, but in my professional life, I have established three different units to address the issues of disabled students, international students, and local students within the framework of ethical and university regulations. These units include the Disability Unit, the International Student Support Office, and the Resolution Center. These units aim to resolve the problems of students with different physical characteristics, cultures, and needs ethically. An average of nearly 5000 applications and disputes are evaluated annually, striving to achieve the most accurate outcome both institutionally and from the students' perspective. While I may not be unique, I believe I have accumulated considerable experience in dispute resolution over the past 11 years. Ozzeon (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Kor

It was pointed out that your candidate page – as well as responses to the questions for all candidates – seem like they have been generated using some kind of artificial intelligence, which might be a reason why many statements read rather vague. Could you give concrete examples where you've been involved at Conduct Issues and Mediation, Movement Organizing or Policy Development in order to make sure this isn't just something an AI wrote? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Johannnes89, I understand that clarification is needed, but some of my answers are included [5] and I can assure you that the responses to the questions are not generated by artificial intelligence. However, I appreciate the opportunity to provide concrete examples of my involvement in Conduct Issues and Mediation, Movement Organization, and Policy Development to alleviate any doubts. Unfortunately, I cannot provide examples from the distant past because I may have forgotten some of them. Nonetheless, I will present some recent facts:

[6]),
[7]https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=7159061
[8]
[9]
[10].
Please translate all my opinion here: [11].
Furthermore, I proposed a peace meeting to revisit rules promoting peace and civility among users [12]
I encourage you to closely examine my behavior here: [13]

Also, once again, why should I need AI to generate my own ideas? Patriot Kor (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoplasmaKid

Hello ProtoplasmaKid, thanks for applying, these are my two questions:

1) The Spanish-speaking community (like the English-speaking one), has a common language, but covers different countries located in different continents, leading to an immense cultural variety, of habits, of ways of doing things, even of considering what is common sense or rudeness if you want (which some might interpret as a violation of the UCoC, some might not). How these differences are managed inside your community?

2) As an admin in Spanish Wikipedia, can you please explain what the process is that the Spanish speaking community sets in motion in the case of violations of art.3 Unacceptable behaviour of the UCoC?

Thank you in advance for your response, --Camelia (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Camelia, thank you for your question. When we drafted the UCOC in its first proposal the intention was to draft a policy that could establish a “level floor” to all Wikimedia projects that lacked elementary policies of conduct. This is not the case for large Wikipedias such as the Spanish language case. In my experience the UCOC text is clear enough about the facts that are punishable. Of course we seek that there is, both the development of cases in a fair and clear way for complicated cases, as well as appeal mechanisms for conclusions that do not assume simple routes.

Respect to second point, UCOC design is sufficiently synthetic not to interfere with local policies. In my case, I have had to use it a few times as a reference for innovative aspects not covered in the etiquette policy, such as collegiality, but it has never been necessary to use it as an element of sanction definition, although I could do so if necessary. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of what Camelia has asked, but a bit more in general – how should the U4C approach conflict resolution and UCoC enforcement in projects such as the Spanish Wikipedia – mature, with a good number of active users, but no high-level decision making body (such as an ArbCom)? –FlyingAce^✈hello 23:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. My opinion is that the current policy of coexistence in the Spanish Wikipedia has generally been helpful in the resolution of controversies. As in all projects, there will be cases where the UCOC comes as a group of new complementary conceptual tools. This is, of course, an aid to the resolution of controversies, but it is not an obstacle to their resolution. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby D-Brown

Why would you choose Twi Wikipedia as your home wiki, given that you only have 2 edits there? MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be addressed by the the election committee as 2 edits are insignificant at all. I saw the user qualifies from at least two projects (en and commons) and common sense dictates us to choose from either one. 1233 （T / C） 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits are not the only way to particpate in a project. Teaching others how to edit (in a specific project) is also a way to participate. But I would like to hear from the candidate. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Ruby's going to dignify it with a response. ELECTCOM already said "home wiki" declarations only need to pass sense check. She's the only candidate that speaks Twi and the only candidate with cultural connections to it. -- Sleyece (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for the candidate reasons, not the rules or the electcom position, which I was well aware of when writing the question. You are just adding noise here. MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is self evident. I already objected to too many candidates being forced into En Wiki as their "home" formally to the committee, and this is just the same "flood the zone" problem in reverse. You're asking a candidate with a unique cultural background why they would claim their culture. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you to not speak for other candidates. Every candidate has their own voice and getting other candidates answering questions for them is not the purpose of this page. MarioGom (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since home wiki changed, the original question is moot. MarioGom (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RXerself

Thank you for putting your candidature forward. In your candidate statement, you mentioned assistance in overcoming the red scare in Indonesian Wikipedia, June 2020. I assume that this is about en:Indonesian Wikipedia#Controversies. Could you give a bit more background about the conflict, and about your role in mitigating it? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is about that. The passage in that article mentioned about how it spilled over to social media and real life. But it didn't mention the vile doxxing and witch hunt that happened around it. At that time, I was not yet an administrator, and how I remember it was that I received news of doxxing of several editors and flamewar on Twitter. The way these people surprised me was on how sleuth they were. I cannot go into more details here, but if I can email you I think I can tell you more. RXerself (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I understand the sensitivity here, and the reason you cannot share more here. MarioGom (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleyece

Your candidate statement mentions your previous enwiki block [14] which you "don't want to happen to anyone else". How can your U4C membership (if elected) help prevent enwiki blocks, which you consider unjust, considering that the U4C doesn't have jurisdiction at enwiki except in instances of systemic failures per U4C charter? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannnes89 The U4C has no real powers except on questions of Charter and the decision is final on any project on which they determine a systemic failure to have occurred. Allow me to describe how I think this will have to work. I think the systemic failures must be addressed at the source, with the source when applicable. Look at my en talk page. It's clear that the Admin Katie was acting in good faith, but I still feel it's obvious that the block was a systemic failure. The charter states that the foundation must give global rights to the U4C to carry out its work and will appoint up to two foundation reps to be nonvoting members. I think how this will have to work is that the foundation should give Global Rollback permissions to all members except one elected member chosen by the foundation. That member should get global founder rights for opinions that check institutional power and be referred to as the Founder for their office. The Founder will choose a Second to take over their rights when they leave office by disqualification or term expiration. Votes should go as follows. The 14 rollbackers (excluding the Second and nonvoting rollbacker who also have those rights) vote on an issue, and, in the case of the tie, a subcommittee of four (Founder, Second, and two Foundation Nonvoters) meet separately and the Founder and Second must be resoundingly advised until they agree on a solution. If they can't agree, the vote is de facto a non systemic failure. If the 14 rollbackers vote that the Founder and Second have a common conflict of interest, then the tie will be broken by Jimmy Wales alone. The punishment for using global rights by committee members not in the course of carrying out U4C voted on opinions should be a non appealable global range ban from all foundation projects. They should be treated as sockpuppets for the remainder of their natural life. Emeritus members should get whatever rights Stewards get only on their home wiki for life (pending good behavior) and have their Global Rights revoked + be disqualified for life from any other committee except to run for election again to the U4C or a home committee or as otherwise allowed by the Charter. I think one nonvoting member should be Jimmy Wales for life or until incapacity, and if I was (as an example) elected and chosen as the first Founder, the Foundation would need to choose Admin Katie (if she's willing to accept), to be the first of the second nonvoters because she is connected to my source. From what I've seen, and since the Foundation is considering the parameters of U4C powers, I would Pre-Nominate Ruby D-Brown as the Second provided she is elected because of the cultural juxtaposition she would offer the subcommittee against mine. If she gets along with Katie, Jimmy Wales could approve that to be as good as source when I leave and Ruby became Founder so they could continue good work. I think being elected to any public office outside Wikimedia Foundation should be an immediate disqualification from office on the U4C, and members should be range checked daily and removed from the U4C as soon as they fail one range check. (ex. the range is any known political office's sphere of influence of more than three other Wikimedians.) So, the member is booted from office by procedural bots if they are a U.S. Representative the first range check after they are sworn into office, but if they're the mayor of a town with only three Wikimedians registered in some Montana wilderness, they pass the check. No one should be allowed to run for the U4C until the day they pass the next range check. I also think the U4C will need an official in person meeting place to debate and vote on the most sensitive matters placed in their care, and that location should be controlled in Right and in Deed by the foundation. In my example system, Katie would need global rollback rights to use at her sole discretion with or without an opinion of the U4C, but to be used at her general discretion to support the U4C or comply with co-equal committee orders that check the U4C and Jimmy Wales would need global Founder Rights to do the same in that same capacity. Upon death, abdication of duty or incapacity of Jimmy Wales the foundation would need to select a new nonvoting member to receive a lifetime position on the U4C and receive Global Founder rights with the exclusion of Katie (just per my example), any current member of the committee and any emeritus member of the committee. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Der-Wir-Ing@Risker@SpringProof@RamzyM (WMF)@Taylor 49@Nealmcb@Ajraddatz@Keegan (WMF)@KTC -- Sleyece (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also requesting that a permanent foundation lock be put on the entire charter including anything linked from the charter after becoming as much a part of it. (i.e., if the community votes on this example system to become a literal part of the charter, just write one sentence into the charter with a link to this section labeled "Sleyece" and permanently foundation lock the section. The charter exceptions would be a.) a future U4C vote determines it to systemically fail or b.) a future U4C organized charter vote amends the section. Any section of any content anywhere on any project should be subject to permanent treatment if conditions are met in kind. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you were issued a final warning by Ajraddatz on your talk page for making demands and being generally rude here on Meta (including accusing a steward of gaslighting and threatening them with T&S and Legal reports). You responded by saying "I'm a U4C candidate, and the closest thing to a U4C member seated. This "Final Warning" stuff is why; because the other candidates are afraid of retaliation or discrimination if they speak out without an official elected office." What do you mean by the first sentence, and what evidence do you have to support your claim about other candidates? Giraffer (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was generalizing, but I grabbed an entire Co-Equal token (as in ELECTCOM has a token; Meta Admins share one and EN Wiki Admins share one etc). I held on for a week until it was taken away on April 7. I don't think any other candidate is going to do anything close to that, nor should they; I've learned the potential for one person to hold a whole token is a systemic issue the U4C will have to deal with first thing. The only two other individuals who have ever held a full token before me, as far as I know, are Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. The two of them gave up their power long before the amount of Co-Equal actors to negotiate with was this voluminous. I may lose the election, but no one else is going to show with words what I've shown through action. I saw an immediate need to do the work of the U4C, and I just went for it. It drove me to a mental breakdown by April 6 for the record, but I managed to wield that power with only Extended Confirmed Rights on En Wiki as a defense, so basically no protection, and I avoided an indefinite meta-block. I feel like that should say something about me, but I don't know what. I would like to think it shows that I understood the assignment, and I know what the U4C is meant to be. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates page says you are a community-at-large candidate. Your own candidate pages says North-America or community-at-large. Which one is correct? --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates who started out as community-at-large apparently can't have the candidate's page updated, ~~which seems like a mistake in the code.~~ I am a candidate at this time for both North America and community-at-large (per rules change). -- Sleyece (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can update the candidates' page, as it's not unlocked (and there's no mistake in the code). I have gone ahead and updated it for you. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating it for me. The code is set to auto-update the candidate page when a candidate fills out the form, but it's not actually clear in the rules if candidates are supposed to edit the candidate page. When I had done so previously, I was reverted and scolded. All the best! -- Sleyece (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "code" is not set to auto-update, there's no mechanism to do that. When you last did it, you changed the preload box instead of adding yourself to the table. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was too nervous to try anything else. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this co-equal token you keep referring to (in absence of anyone else referring to such a concept) and can you point to such a concept documented as part of the U4C? Why do you believe you had any authority to hold "the newly minted token of the U4C" (your words) between March 31-April 7? You refer to being a proto-member of the U4C repeatedly in various places, with authority to act on behalf of the U4C. Why do you believe this was a legitimate claim to make? Ferret (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.1 and 1.2 of the U4C Charter were in effect as soon as the Draft Charter passed the vote. Nothing in the charter prevented a U4C candidate from acting on those. The token I'm referring to is the totality of a co-equal power. As in, the U4C will split a token 16 ways. En Wiki Admins split a token more ways than that. ELECTCOM splits it fewer ways. Every actor with a piece of a token can be a co-equal actor; I'm conceptualizing the interplay of co-equal actions. Legal has emailed me and said, in effect, that I activated 4.2.1 by opening Ticket 76757; so, only a seated U4C can use 1.1 or 1.2 from this point. I'm coining terms to describe what I did; it's not so much "authority" as in global rights. I'm more describing a symbol of the U4C's collected power and making a token concept. Other than those three sections, the rest of the Draft Charter only applies to ELECTCOM and the Building Committee until the end of the first election. That's why I believe my claims are legitimate in any case. If I had to simplify the answer I would just say my actions were within the scope of the U4C, and the rest of the charter is not until the first election is over. Some will say that there is no action that I can or should take because the U4C doesn't "exist" yet, but that's only semantics. If the charter is active, and the systemic problem exists as a matter of common sense, then my actions were within the scope of 1.1 and 1.2; obviously I leave good work to other co-equal actors from this point. I no longer have a token. Please indulge my framing for the sake of hearing me out. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the entire token concept is simply one you have made up to describe your personal vision on how various bodies within the movement interact. You are also saying that merely by putting yourself forward as a candidate, you believe you gained authority and power to act on behalf of U4C within the projects, unelected and unappointed (as per 1.3). I'd like you to express that you understand that this was completely invalid. U4C 1.1 and U4C 1.2 being in effect granted you nothing, because you are not on the U4C. You have no authority to act on behalf of 4.2.1, and additionally, if you had, you would have been violating the jurisdiction. Do you understand this? Ferret (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to describe how various bodies interact as I see it, or at least you were asking me to describe how I was thinking about the concepts. I did not claim to have authority or power, or at least that wasn't my intention. I was explaining past events. I said 4.2.1 prevents me from having authority; I never claimed that it gave me power. If you're saying my actions were invalid per 1.3, then, yes, I could understand that now, although I didn't at the time. I was answering your question from the POV of my thinking on April 6 because I thought that's what you wanted. I didn't mean to imply that is my thinking today. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you express your answers as "as I was thinking on April 6", without making that clear, everyone will take that to mean it is your thinking today. Between April 10 and 11, you've repeatedly referred to the token concept, claimed you "held a token" legitimately, that it was "taken away" (How could it be? It does not exist. See Special:Diff/26581555), you have expressed yourself the "sole proto-member" (Special:Diff/26581704) without any retraction, you have proudly declared you were legitimately acting as U4C (Special:Diff/26588947). You have never been a member of U4C, proto- or otherwise, and you have never held a "Co-Equal token" (whatever that actually means) with existing bodies. So I want you to express, "as of today", that you understand that everything you did between March 31-April 7 was invalid. Do you disagree? Ferret (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, as of today, it is my understanding that my actions were invalid. I understand now (as in 4/13) that what I did March 31-April 7 was not done with any valid authority or the power of the U4C. This is my formal retraction of my thinking in the first week of April. I understand today there was no token to hold and the actions I took March 31-April 7 were invalid. I hope that clears my meaning up a bit. Would you like me to revert previous statements or leave them up for the record? -- Sleyece (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally statements should not be reverted and blanked. They might be retracted, if you feel the need. You should definitely update your candidate statements, as of right now you give every appearance that you were acting legitimately. I would note that your recent blanking of your responses to MarioGom illustrate why this is problematic: It now looks like MarioGom was speaking to thin air. You should restate those edits and instead strike them through. Ferret (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've done a strike through of any post April 7 candidate statement that could give the impression that I still have the same mindset as before. If there's anything I'm still missing, please let me know. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpringProof

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soni

Hi Soni, is there anything else voters should know about the current candidates? Also, do you think candidates are allowed to ask themselves questions? Soni (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, Soni. I just checked the rules and I don't see why not. But mainly I wanted to highlight User:MarioGom/Voting_guides/U4C2024 and User:Giraffer/U4CE2024, two analysis/voter guides by MarioGom and Giraffer which had not been linked from any Elections page yet. I think voters are best when well informed so making analysis more accessible is always good. Soni (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superpes15

How do you think your experience as a steward can enrich the U4C? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johannnes89: and thanks for your question. As I said in my statement, I think that my experience, focused on a cross-wiki vision, can support a team that needs to work globally. Being a steward I have already dealt with dispute resolution and policy issues, and I have been able to know and understand the variety of thoughts on projects. I believe that this experience has meant that I can evaluate various situations with ever greater awareness. I also believe that I could act as a point of reference between the stewards and the U4C also for the purpose of better coordination. I think that a diversified U4C, made up of functioneers with different roles (a bit like what happens in the OC), allows different experiences to be combined in order to improve the management and decision-making processes of the committee. Thanks again! Superpes15 (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Superpes15. Thanks in part to your initiative and support, it.wiki has finally adopted an appeals procedure against blocks. However, the procedure stipulates that blocks can only be appealed if they are longer than two weeks and only after half of the block has elapsed; indefinite blocks can be appealed after six months (here). Moreover, it.wiki is about to approve an ArbCom policy which stipulates that ArbCom has no authority over user access levels, including desysopping, and that the opinions and reasoning of arbitrators should be kept secret from the community (here). Given the UCoC's commitment to fairness and transparency in UCoC enforcement, I'd like to know if you think you'll be able to fulfil the U4C's task of monitoring and assessing the state of UCoC implementation at your home wiki. I ask this because you (and also Civvì) have not yet expressed your views on these two important rules (cool-down period equal to half of the block and secrecy of arbitrators' opinions) which could perhaps qualify as "systemic failure" to implement the UCoC's provisions on procedural fairness and transparency. Thanks, --Gitz6666 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gitz6666:! I believe the answer, if referring to U4C as a body, is yes. I specify this because I could probably only take care of translating objectively and without commenting on itwiki issues for a conflict of interest. So for me, in a dispute regarding itwiki I can clarify to other members how things work, but I would avoid saying whether this is ok from the UCoC point of view (as I already do when I act as a steward). Regarding the "U4C intervention in projects", generally speaking, when there are problems or difficulties or failures in applying the UCoC it is clear that the U4C must intervene, first of all collaborating with local bodies and/or functionaries, to resolve the problems or and regain compliance with the UCoC. As for my opinion on those events (in which I didn't intervene because I was not able to follow everything for various commitments in RL), I believe that every policy can be improved, obviously community consensus prevails, but it can always be changed as soon as the community notice something that isn't working well, and I'm convinced that an initial policy is by its nature prone to being modified (for improvements) after it begins to be applied. Itwiki has never had a form of ArbCom and having one is an improvement, the procedures will certainly need to be well outlined, and over time the fields of action will be able to be extended and the internal procedures sorted out to maintain maximum transparency and effectiveness. Thanks for your question! Superpes15 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(*) Hello Superpes15, thanks for applying. After 14 years, for adapting to the different policies on community health - one of the results of the work of the Diversity Working Group and the Community Health Working Group during the years of construction of the 2030 Strategy - itwiki has also equipped itself with a translation of the Harassment page. During the discussion, some of the translated statements/paragraphs were excluded or adapted because considered not inherent to the local community and too specific for the Anglo-Saxon community.

1) Do you think that harassment (and I'm talking about harassment exactly as intended by the text of the current UCoC policy under art.3 Unacceptable behaviour, therefore hounding, abuse of power, doxing, psychological manipulation etc. and not simple rudeness) can have local interpretations?

2) What do you think is the range of action of the U4C on UCoC issues at the local community level (given that the U4C purpose is to interviene in case of failure of the local communities on UCoC matters, but at the local level - itwiki, the situation I know better - it is unclear to understand what is considered a failure)?

Thank you in advance for your response, --Camelia (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Camelia.boban: and thanks for the question. I don't think that inappropriate behavior on one project (obviously in terms of harrasment) may be appropriate on another. Btw I believe that the cultural and linguistic nuances must undoubtedly be considered in the evaluation, just for example the Italian language doesn't have a neutral gender. I think U4C should intervene when UCoC fails to be locally applied correctly (for example in the cases you mentioned), there may be inconsistencies and unclear steps in local policies and for this reason the collaboration with local functionaries is of fundamental importance. The most delicate work (and this is what I consider the greatest challenge in performing U4C duties) will be to find a balance between local policies and the UCoC, and we will strive for the most homogeneous application possible on all projects. Thanks again! Superpes15 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and for responding. Camelia (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49

You've been involved in a long-term conflict at eowiktionary which lead to you being blocked multiple times [15] by the only other administrator and in return blocking them [16], which got both of you desysopped [17]. As mentioned in your candidate statement you've tried to get help from the global community and the stewards multiple times (e.g. [18][19][20][21][22][23]) – as the conflict is still ongoing [24], this will likely end up at the U4C.

How would you act if you were elected and the U4C were to deal with this case? And what to you think about criticism of your actions in this conflict (e.g. [25][26][27][28][29][30]), especially regarding lack of civility? --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those questions. If I was elected into the U4C and the case "eo wiktionary" happened to land there, I obviously would not touch it due to conflict of interest. As to the complaints about lack of civility from my side, analysis of the discussions will reveal that incivility from my side was substantially less than incivility from the other part, ongoing during too long time, without any punishment or even slightest criticism. About being repeatedly blocked on eo wiktionary, the responsible user Pablo_Escobar is permanently blocked on es wiktionary, and was repeatedly blocked on de wiktionary too, for disruptive editing before ariving to eo wiktionary and blocking me. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is eowiktioniary? Todd Bezenek (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

eowiktionary -> eo.wiktionary.org, the project where Taylor 49 has done most of their contributions [31]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eo is Esperanto Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 16:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Interesting. Esperanto. DWI. Now it is GroqCloud(tm). I worked at MIPS before it became "Esperanto" then "Groq". I was the third computer architect at the company:

John H. -> R. T. who worked for Susan Eggers at UW/DEC -> Todd B.

I'm only trying to help. If you do NOT need help, I cannot help you.

Let me know if I can do anything.

-Todd B Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On ~~his~~ user page on svwp he summaries ~~his~~ status on the projects he is active on sv:Användare:Taylor 49, the issue on svwp w was a minor one (blocking not discussed), it was about one civility issue (naming counterpart "dagisbarn" (preschoolchild)) (sv:Användardiskussion:Taylor_49/arkiv#Etikett). Yger (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yger: Sorry for editing your text ... I am not male. Indeed on sv wikipedia I was blocked at one time, nobody knows why, maybe even by mistake. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking was a technical mistake, as is clearly visible in the block log https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Blockera/Taylor_49 And I am sorry to have used He/his Yger (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiputini

Hello Tiputini, thanks for applying, these are my two questions:

1) Not knowing the situation in the Spanish speaking community, can you please explain what do you think are the biggest issues related to the application of the UCoC within your community?

2) What do you think the Wikimedia movement in its entirety (including WMF, affiliates and the various committees such as T&S, ArbCom, U4C itself) can and should do on a concrete level to counter the violations provided for in the art. 3 Unacceptable behavior.

Thank you in advance for your response, --Camelia (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

1) At the outset, I would like to make it clear that my presentation does not only focus on the Spanish-speaking community. It also includes the communities of the other co-official languages spoken in the Spanish state: Catalan, Galician and Basque.

In principle, I foresee that the application of the UCoC in all the face-to-face and online events organised by the communities of the Spanish State will not be conflicting, since the communities are already very aware of friendly spaces and the Code will be another step to guarantee a safe and pleasant working environment and, in case of incidents, to have clear guidelines on how to restore said environment and how to disseminate what behaviour is expected and what is not tolerable.

I hope to help draft a new Friendly Space Policy in line with the UCoC, discuss it with communities and build the infrastructure for its implementation. I will also be helping to define the protocol to be followed for the reporting of incidents, how they will be investigated, what measures can be put in place to ensure a friendly space, and how a transparent appeals process can be put in place. I hope this process will be a great learning experience for everyone.

2)This is more complex to answer. The unacceptable behaviour described in Article 3 is particularly evident on talk pages. It is difficult to judge whether unacceptable behaviour is taking place and where to draw the line between what is appropriate to say and what goes beyond what is expected. It is also essential, and very difficult, to recognise when power is being abused to intimidate others, especially new editors, whose hostile comments may trigger unwanted reactions such as leaving the site.

It is also crucial to resolve a situation where there is a perception of psychological manipulation, where someone is made to doubt their own perceptions, senses or understanding in order to win an argument. The fundamental question is how to proceed in such circumstances. One possible solution might be to work with a group of volunteers who are considered trustworthy by the publishing community. These people would receive specific training in mediation and harassment management to help de-escalate confrontations and repair the damage caused by the aggressor. This approach could promote a deeper level of application of the Code and create a healthier and more respectful environment within the community, encouraging constructive dialogue and collaboration rather than the confrontation and intimidation that motivates editors, especially women, to leave. Tiputini (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response Tiputini and for getting the time to respond. --Camelia (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugwulebo

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U4C is a set of principles guiding behaviour of members in the wiki space and this policy applies to everyone who has contributed as an organizer, staff, volunteer or editor on the wiki space. As long as the individual is active in the wiki space, this policy is binding on them.

I am a unique candidate for this position because I have experience working in the wiki space as a member of an active Wikimedia group, a grant committee member, an organiser, a contributor to global and local campaign, and also as a community leader. In these positions, i have been exposed to issues of community members ranging from conflict of interest, suppressing of voices, teamwork challenges and also meeting project deadlines. In these roles, i have interacted and mentored diverse users from different tribes who have grown to be experienced and active contributors.

My experience in ensuring that community issues relating to Wikimedia friendly spaces, ethics of contribution and coordination in Wikimedia and also general uniformity and mentoring of newbies will help me to lend my voice to developing a global document for the wiki space that will be accepted by contributors from diverse groups and locations. Ugwulebo (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ugwulebo, I find your answer to the misgendering question a bit confusing.

Where there is absence of guiding rules and principles on the use of pronouns, non-declaration of pronouns cannot be termed an appropriate conduct. If there is an existing document stating that pronouns must be used by users and a user flaunts it, that can be declared as an inappropriate conduct and the user is bound to face the consequences of their actions.

The U4C will be enforcing the UCoC. Section 2.1 of UCoC states People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns;. Do you not consider this an "existing document"? Or do you interpret the section differently?

More generally, how specific do you expect "guiding rules and principles" to be? If the UCoC didn't explicitly specify gender and pronouns, would you be against enforcing Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves for misgendering? I find myself a bit confused when you consider "guiding rules" existing or not.

Soni (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just adding to the UCoC section 2.1 by stating that if a user flaunts the existing rule on the use of pronouns, it can be declared as an unethical conduct. In the absence of a document which is not the case here, it can't be declared as unethical. If the UCoC doesn't specify gender and pronouns, enforcing it will have to follow a laid down rule and regulation to ensure uniformity and avoid bias towards a specific user. Without a laid down rule and regulation, there will be issues of conflict of interest towards enforcing any principle or when settling issues. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volstand

Ybsen lucero

How should the U4C approach conflict resolution and UCoC enforcement in projects such as the Spanish Wikipedia – mature, with a good number of active users, but no high-level decision making body (such as an ArbCom)? –FlyingAce^✈hello 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way in which the UCoC will be applied will not depend on the existence of a "high-level decision making body" in the projects, but it will be supported by it (if it exists). Since 2009 Spanish Wikipedia has resolved its conflicts based on discussion and understanding. And, although there have been situations in which said standard has not been sufficient, conflict resolution has been (in general terms) satisfactory.

The point is that there must be a linear and defined mechanism to regulate behavior within the Movement, achieve equality in the problem resolution processes (and that is what the UCoC is for), and also a clear guideline for when the protocols established by the different projects and/or affiliates are not able to resolve the situation (which, broadly speaking, is the primary function of the U4C).

The U4C is not there to supplant ArbCom-type structures in the different projects/affiliates. In fact, one of the guidelines to be applied by the U4C is to support, in multiple ways, the application of the UCoC by local government structures (including ArbComs, advanced permit holders, local librarians, etc.). That is, the UCoC and the U4C will be the regulators and standardizers of these governance processes. Ybsen lucero (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.