Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements

Proposed list of tools

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Proposed list of tools

• The list looks reasonable and all members of the U4C were elected in due process, proving the community's trust. I would be  Support. Nadzik (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable, 3 of these are generally given to (* all users), 5 are "view only" normally included in sysop; 2FA is no big deal; (abusefilter-hidden-log) is the only stretch in to an item that is normally just for oversighters -- however for those that don't know better this specific log doesn't support revision deletion, so if it has to be hidden this is the only way to hide it currently. LAdmin on meta seems fine for the purpose - should use a special expiration equal to the elected term, even if over 1 year. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• No objection, but just curious what specific tasks you expect to use admin on Meta for. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 00:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Managing users in U4C space and translation admin activities are the two that are on my mind. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would prefer that translation adminship not be granted without a request for translation admin, for basically the same reasons as Meta:Requests for comment/Change to WMF staff user rights policy. Especially since the skillset of properly preparing a page for translation has little to do with anything else. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Then the permissions need to be fixed. As it stands I do not see a reason why these members cannot do translationadmin stuff as well for U4C pages. Leaderboard (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  To build on what leaderboard says the charter section linked does give the U4C broad rights about what tools it can have. However, I am certainly thinking about the broader point being made here (just because we can request it doesn't mean we should). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not disputing that the Charter gives the U4C the ability to grant itaself translation adminship. I'm saying that the community requirements for translation adminship these days amount to "do you know how the Translaste extension works" and U4C members are no more likely to know how it works and hence be qualified than anyone else, and lots of messes have been made in the past by people without sufficient understanding of translate syntax marking incorrectly prepared pages for translation. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, being on the U4C probably would mean that the person is more cautious when it comes to technical abilities, but I get your reasoning and your point. Which is why I decided to request it through the community process :)

  On another note, I think we can initially just propose limited adminship within the scope of imposing partial blocks from U4C related pages, deleting/undeleting U4C related pages and other types of U4C related administration if required, for us to have some level of limited control on e.g. comments on public case pages. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the concern here is that using translationadmin without actually learning how to use it properly can (and has been) disruptive, this is generally due to lack of training or errors than malintent. Gaining TA access naturally is a fairly low bar, and coupling it with a different group could lead to the rather unpleasant scenario of local project blocks on those disruptively using it (as it can't just be revoked). My suggestion is that committee members that actually want to work with those functions learn them and just ask for the access directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would think that just like ombuds, the U4C members should have the ability to view suppressed revisions (both normal revision-delete and oversight-level suppression)? I could also see a case for global CheckUser for the same reason. Limited adminship on Meta is sensible. Leaderboard (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Given that issues with OS / CU are handled by Ombuds, I can't imagine many U4C cases where access to suppressed revisions or CU logs is necessary? We could add the necessary permissions temporarily if/when the need arises. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I thought OS/CU would be required in the course of U4C's duties (for example, to investigate alleged abuse or sock puppetry of an admin). Leaderboard (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ombuds Commission (OC) reviews whether a user has used the CheckUser (CU) or Oversight (OS) tools in compliance with the policy. Actions such as blocks, bans, warnings, or other measures taken based on information obtained from the CU tool are not within the OC's scope. However, CU or OS access may be required for Committee if an appeal or case involves CU data or if an alleged edit has been oversighted. —MdsShakil (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  We'll have to see how it really turns out but I am not anticipating the same kind of OS/CU need for the U4C as enwiki ArbCom has. But also our philosophy has been to try and be (small c) conservative with this request. If we find we need more tools, the charter obviously allows us to ask for more - I can also see additional tool requests for certain cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• If there are U4C cases involving users without an account (or users editing logged out) you might want to add ipinfo and checkuser-temporary-account in order to deal with temporary accounts. The same permissions are given to global rollbackers and similar global groups. --Johannnes89 (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed inactivity rule

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Proposed inactivity rule

• To add a bit of personal commentary here, the intent of this rule is to allow the committee to work in the context of barely meeting the quorum when one member (or up to three) are unexpectedly absent. The thinking here, at least on my part, is that the community has decided there should be a U4C and elected sufficient members to it for it to perform its functions. However, without this rule in place, in practice we may not be able to take decisions as a committee. Community comments are very welcome - is this going outside the spirit of the quorum requirement in the U4C charter? Is it important that we find a way to operate within our current constraints so we can begin operations? Would people like to see the issue of quorum / how U4C members are elected reviewed as part of the annual review of the enforcement guidelines and UCoC before the next elections? – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Despite the above, no vote may pass with fewer supporting votes than would be needed to reach a majority with a quorum of members voting for or against (i.e. >50%)." - what exactly does this mean? Does it mean that there must at least be 4 people supporting in any case? Leaderboard (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  A minimum of five with the current quorum; the intent is to allow us to work when one or two people are temporarily away, while still respecting the spirit of the charter in preventing decisions from being taken by a very small number of people. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry for the super-long comment. Most of this is about the relevant Charter line, but as a TL;DR see my last bolded point. To situate this, the U4C charter notes:

The U4C can seat with any number of members, but no decision or vote can be taken by the Committee unless the quorum of 50% (8 members) of the voting members (16 members) is attained.

This doesn't seem to define what it means to "attain" quorum. There seem to be three possible interpretations:

1. The committee attains broad quorum when it has 8 or more members
2. The committee attains decision-specific quorum when 8 or more members vote on a decision
3. The committee attains decision-specific quorum when 8 or more members vote in favor of a decision

If it's 2, it's unclear whether it includes abstentions (relevant to this request). I'm thinking that 1 might be the best interpretation, given that the Charter's sentence implies that a vote can't occur unless quorum is reached ("no decision or vote can be taken")...and thus quorum cannot refer to voting members because a vote cannot happen without quorum. Hopefully this proposed rule can help (implicitly or explicitly) clarify this.

So, re: the proposed inactivity rule, the relevant line is:

...no vote may pass with fewer supporting votes than would be needed to reach a majority with a quorum of members voting for or against (i.e. >50%).

Let me know if this is a correct interpretation: Votes may pass if fewer than 8 (the quorum number) members participate, so long as at least 5 (8/2+1) vote in support. (and ofc that fewer than 5 vote in opposition, which is guaranteed with the current committee size)

I think this works optimally when we only have 8 members: if 5 members vote in support of a decision and 3 are inactive (and thus abstained), those 3 votes wouldn't change the outcome even if they all voted oppose. Therefore, when there are only 8 members, this method makes no assumptions about the voting preferences of the inactive members. However...if you had the full 16 members, this would still require only 5 members to pass if everyone else was inactive/abstained. This is because it is based on the quorum (always 8) and not total membership. I think that's okay, but something to be aware of.

Mainly, I think this sentence should be clarified by expanding "with", which is ambiguous, to "in a situation where". I.e.: "No vote may pass with fewer supporting votes than would be required in a situation where a full quorum of members voted." This would make interpretation a bit easier imo. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 19:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As discussed offline, I agree with the suggestion and we will put that into the final text :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Inactivity rule

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Inactivity rule

User rights

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#User rights

• Out of curiosity, does the U4C intend to publish the names of the members who voted in a particular way in this or future announcements? My sense is that transparency is helpful except when there are specific reasons for withholding that information, but am happy to hear arguments otherwise. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 03:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done, --Ghilt (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding Meta admin rights, as written, this motion only requests limited permissions for the U4C, but it appears to be interpreted by some as abolishing the authority of the regular Meta admins and overriding the Meta policies on U4C-related pages. Could you please clarify exactly what the U4C motion entails? I would strongly prefer that the authority of the regular Meta admins and the Meta policies remain in place as much as possible, especially for the talk pages. That would bring some form of additional "separation of powers". This is especially important since, as opposed to ArbCom's within specific projects, the U4C members come from a diverse set of projects that have quite different norms, so they can take actions that would be acceptable in their home projects but controversial on Meta. Thanks for considering. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Can you link to examples of "interpreted by some as abolishing the authority of the regular Meta admins and overriding the Meta policies on U4C-related pages."? This would provide helpful context as I consider your questions. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Barkeep49, the core example is the response of the Meta admins when I objected to the admin action taken by Ibrahim.ID.[1] Also, Ghilt seemed to be aligned with the interpretation of the Meta admins.[2] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am speaking only for myself with this comment. I largely agree with Luke's comment. We have Meta sysop in order to manage U4C pages. This includes moderating the pages themselves. You seem to be writing that somehow the U4C members should not have this power - because we come from different projects - and I'm going to respectfully disagree. If the consensus of full Meta admins is, as one admin says in that discussion, that they're going to leave moderation to us outside of vandalism and spam, I'm not inclined to ask them to do otherwise right now, because I think the U4C has capacity (and a global mandate through the elections) to handle our pages and processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  (Speaking for myself at the moment) To address what has been said more explicitly: If a U4C member has violated a Meta policy and disrupted the project, then Meta admins are totally free to take whatever actions necessary towards the user. However, content moderation around our case pages should remain something that the U4C itself does. We are the primary body that these comments are addressed to, thus I believe we are able to decide what can be included/removed from these discussion pages. If you take issue with the removal by an individual U4C member, you should talk to the U4C (not Meta admins) and ask us to form a collective decision on whether the removal is justified. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorting and announcements on this page

@Ghilt: Can I ask why the main page is now sorted new-to-old, while this talk page is sorted old-to-new? Seems a bit counterintuitive, and other announcement pages seem to be old-to-new, so this is a bit of a confusing layout.

Separately, is there any plan to cross-post, or otherwise announce more broadly, the U4C's announcements? A MassMessage list would be best, but anything will do; on enwiki, we automatically post ArbCom announcements to the administrators' noticeboard there. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 03:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi KevinL, the cases are sorted new to old for convenience to the community (we have been asked to sort the cases new to old). Unfortunately, talk pages are always sorted old to new (by clicking on 'Add topic'). Do you have a recommendation? And regarding the announcements, we are currently discussing means to increase announcement visibility. --Ghilt (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

de.wiktionary

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#de.wiktionary

クフィ

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#クフィ

Adding to our role

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#Adding_to_our_role

• Why? How are community protection policies hampering the work of this committee? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I was unable to deliver notifications of a case filed against two users recently because they had semiprotection on their usertalk because of previous harassment and I was not autoconfirmed on that wiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The (editsemiprotected) permission could overcome that, the (autoconfirmed) permission is about rate limits. What type of rate limit problems are you encountering? — xaosflux ^Talk 10:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There might be a possibility for edit filters to prevent non-autoconfirmed users from editing someone's talk page when delivering notifications, though that might be very rare. If editsemiprotected alone is helpful in bypassing semi-protection that some editor's talk pages have, then I think that is enough for the time being. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's happened repeatedly with WMF staff delivering notifications to noticeboards on small/medium wikis. I think most global filters should be updated to use global_edit_count, but that's not the case on wikis that manage their own edit filters, which is why I recommended that the U4C request it. We give global rollbackers global autoconfirmed, so I'm really not concerned about it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

In my comment below I was specifically thinking about global rollbackers having it and was wondering what harm/abuse xaos saw arising from U4C (who I think have a higher degree of shown trust than the average global rollbacker). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My bot also runs into this issue respectively - autoconfirmed is a sensible addition though if one isn't autoconfirmed, usually it simply results in a CAPTCHA rather than an explicit prohibition from my experience. Leaderboard (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xaosflux can I ask what your concern is with the U4C having this role? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My read is that this committee has a specific purpose, and should only be gaining permissions necessary to meet that purpose. What I'm mostly asking for is that when the committee wants a permission added to themselves they should be able to explain why it is necessary, not just because we said so. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons administrator case suspension

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#Commons_administrator case_suspension

U4C Non-voting member appointed

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#U4C_Non-voting_member_appointed

• It is great to see that the WMF is taking the U4C seriously by appointing from high up in the Foundation . Sdrqaz (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• When Jacob's name was suggested as a possibility I was super excited and even more excited when it was confirmed. I genuinely look forward to whatever he might contribute to our work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Бабкинъ Михаилъ

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#Бабкинъ Михаилъ

• Do they have a username, can you provide a link to the account? Ciell (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Special:CentralAuth/Бабкинъ Михаилъ. Luke081515 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

U4C Meeting

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#U4C_Meeting

• Where was this held? Was it as part of some other event? Leaderboard (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  It was held in Amsterdam for reasons of price and geography and was not part of some other event. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  And who paid for it? WMF or the members themselves? Leaderboard (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  What a strange and suggestive question. Ciell (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 A response to my question would be nice to have. Leaderboard (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that this report goes above and beyond our responsibilities to be transparent (which under the charter are merely restricted to cases). Which I like and support. But which also means that I don't feel a huge need to answer a series of increasingly probing questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I disagree with the claim about "probing" - I was not expecting more than a few words. This was actually meant to be my last question on this topic, and the reason I asked this specifically is because generally this is not the case from my (pretty limited) experience. For example, parts of the Board of Trustees 2024 election were done at Wikimania 2024 - and that makes sense logistically. It may be obvious for you, but I still find the concept of having three days for an in-person meeting of a volunteer group somewhat of a head-scratcher, especially when some of the members would have to travel thousands of kilometres for it. I hence do not find my question unreasonable or excessive at all. Leaderboard (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update and thanks to all U4C members for taking the time and possibly traveling to meet in person. As a community member, I appreciate all your efforts toward improving the U4C, UCoC and toward achieving the broader goals. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding checkuser-log temporary to the userrights of the U4C

Isn't this a bit of a mix-up between what the Ombuds Commission does and what U4C does? Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 15:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The Ombuds certainly have jurisdiction over use and abuse of the checkuser tool and for this reason I was initially skeptical of this proposal. However, because use of Checkuser is an important part of the over all allegations, there is information we need in order to perform our investigation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Why does this have to be temporary? Leaderboard (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it depends on our experience in the future. We are currently unsure, if we have so many cases that need this kind of investigation, that justifies a permanent assign of such a sensitive right. I think this is a question, where we haven't find a consensus on how to handle it in the future yet, so we started with having it temporary assigned for that case, as that's something everyone can agree with. Best regards, Luke081515 20:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And in cases where you only need to review CheckUser logs, why wouldn't it be better to ask for assistance from a member of the Ombuds? That would demonstrate synergy between both volunteer bodies. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 07:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Synergy for synergy's sake seems a little inefficient to me, especially when it isn't clear whether policy and past precedent supports such practice. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad we first started discussing possible CU needs during our in person meetings. There was skepticism from a few members (including myself) about the need for us to have direct access. One thing that came out of that was us seeking confirmation from Legal that the Ombuds and/or the Stewards would be able to share appropriate information with us, without us having to explicitly grant ourselves the accompanying rights. Legal did indeed confirm that. So I think there can certainly be cases where that's the route we explore in the future. In this case there were a number of circumstances where, for me, and despite my skepticism, where I became convinced the log access just made sense. I obviously can't speak for other members of the U4C. But what might make sense is for the U4C and Ombuds to have a meeting together? We have had several opportunities to interact with the Stewards to develop a positive ongoing relationship between the two groups, and a meeting between our two committees might help in terms of figuring out what synergies there are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Talking to each other is always a good idea. I would appreciate such a meeting. That said, I think it is perfectly fine for the U4C to have the log access if it is helpful for a specific case. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Ganímedes

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#Ganímedes

Chinese Wikisource

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Chinese Wikisource

• @0xDeadbeef: Request clarifying: Does the "No party to this case may close or remove the RFDA" exclude the procedural closure after (at least) 14 days of voting per community policy? Or it's more strictly applied, so a third administrator closing the vote is a must? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Anybody here? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Eric, imo the purpose is to avoid closing by someone with a conflict of interest. Ghilt (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Ericliu1912 notification, Ghilt (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, then it would be more appropriate to interpret the cause as requiring a third-party administrator. I see. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but i have asked my colleagues for their input, i'm only one of the U4C members. Ghilt (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Ericliu1912 we have discussed the issue: "the purpose is to avoid closing the request by someone with a conflict of interest". On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sure. And base on this, I would like the Committee to immediately decide if this imminent action by one of the local administrator fit with the motion, as it is quite urgent (only 3 days left). cc. Gzdavidwong. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  cccc. Ghilt. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Ericliu1912 The translation is a bit cryptic to me: "To make a respect for the neutrality of the hustle and mind, I was in the official case of the official stupor of the studded neutral management of the name for at least three days. I am currently moving on to the basis ofWikisource:Author's Departure/Amendment 2開展討論. Guapia@Canton 7 June 2025 (VI) 16:07 (UTC)". Can you explain, please? Ghilt (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  The deepl version is better than this: "As a sign of respect for neutrality, I will consider formally closing the case after at least three days of non-response from two neutral administrators.I am currently inclined to start a discussion based on Wikisource:Admin's departure/amendment 2". We have acknowledged the result of the RfDA of Zhxy 519,[3] if you mean that? -- Ghilt (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ghilt, basically (1) He'll formally close the vote (probably include counting votes and announcing the result) if any of the remaining local neutral administrator (i.e. Shizhao [didn't vote] and Hat600 [voted neutral]) don't act or don't want to act, (2) Initiate further community discussion on our RfDA guideline. I would like the Committee to decide if he (Gzdavidwong) can do that (1), or do they (you) want to certify the vote them/yourselves? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 17:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please note that this comment is made at my personally capacity and does not represent the view of the entire committee.

  I would recommend against Gzdavidwong closing the RfDA, because some people in the community may consider Gzdavidwong biased (or w:en:WP:involved) in regards to Zhxy 519's adminship. For example when Zhxy 519 removed the RfDAs, they also removed the RfDA started against Gzdavidwong, so Gzdavidwong appears to have benefited from Zhxy 519's actions. dbeef (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, i fully agree with dbeef here. What about Shizhao or Hat600, are they ready to finalise the RfDA? Ghilt (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Dbeef and Ghilt: Here's an update from the local community. Hat600 had confirmed the result, summaried as follow:

  1. Whereas the Committee respect zhwikisource local community's ability to handle the matter themselves;
  2. Whereas the Request for Zhxy 519's de-adminship had 10 support, against 11 oppose;
  3. Whereas the local community could not determine whether sockpuppetry were involved in the process, without any decisive or technical prove;
  4. Decides to close the Request as not successful, unless there were additional instructions from the Committee.

  Jusjih then commented: "[I] respect and agree with the neutral administrator Hat600's opinion", and reiterate the importance of evaluating the involvement of sockpuppetry, especially meatpuppetry (both should be supported with sufficient evidence, of course). They also wish to wait for instructions from the Committee. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 09:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the information, we have been watching ;)! Ghilt (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Certain restraining orders upon Zhxy 519 still have to be considered based on his motive and major conflict of interest to remove my adminship the fifth time now.--Jusjih (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  My hope is the locals community could come to agreement on this topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I would say that they do have their reasons and the right to request a de-adminship, base on current accusations by the opponent. The Committee's role should be instead ensuring that the vote were conducted without interruption. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 10:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Dbeef and Ghilt: Another update: The result of Jusjih's RfDA was also confirmed (this time by me), as there were 3 support against 5 five oppose, the Request were closed as not successful as well. The Committee could now consider to move on. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 23:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the update! Ghilt (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#MediaWiki

• This announcement misunderstands the purpose of that preference; the purpose of it is to specify the grammatical g[ender the software should use to refer to you, not your pronouns. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 00:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Pppery: one ticket is about grammatical gender, the other is a separate setting about pronouns. dbeef (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• How in the world should that preference be internationalized/localized anyway? --魔琴 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @魔琴: It it my hope that once they add pronouns, it can be configured per-language, so in Chinese you can input 他/她/TA as needed. dbeef (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Special:GlobalPreferences is not (and not likely to be) language-specific. And it would be quite a challenge for volunteers on translatewiki.net to consider all the possible inputs. 魔琴 (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Note: "English has a singular they that can be used but plenty of languages such as German don't have a singular third person pronoun. In many languages gender also has a more far-reaching effect then just affecting pronouns." - ChristianKl so having gender-neutral pronoun is a challenge for I18n. GZWDer (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  We already have a neutral/undisclosed gender option. I don't think splitting it would change much. The challenge now is a custom pronoun option that would really impact how we handle the translations. 魔琴 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Can always input multiple options per language, with a fallback, if another language does not recognize it. Shushugah (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 U4C election results

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#2025 U4C election results

• I find myself once again concerned and slightly disappointed with the community for not voting in more eligible candidates for the U4C. I do not believe a committee working exactly at quorum for a full year is sustainable. And there were quite a few qualified candidates, who weren't super far from the threshold and could have been elected.

For future elections, I will request U4C to consider alternate options, such as open elections, in the style of the Steward process.

I also plan to personally advocate for some voters to just vote yes on everyone not obviously disqualifying. If the threshold and process cannot change, perhaps voting patterns can.

Soni (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It is difficult for the community to vote more qualified candidates into the U4C if such candidates do not run. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Does not explain why such "qualified" candidates cannot go beyond the high 60s/early 70s. If this was a steward election, they'll be in the 90s. Leaderboard (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If 74% is the highest score and 60% is the minimum than there is needed either an issue that the 26% are not expressing or too high of a standard. Open voting could mitigate this potentially Shushugah (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I support what you intend to do, but it likely won't change anything. People who oppose the existence of the UCoC and U4C will oppose every candidate as a form of protest. One of those people openly admitted it.

I don't think the U4C will ever have 16 members. The only way for it to exercise all its powers is to set the quorum at some number less than 16. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

One bold possibility would be to enable at minimum, the top X candidates who run a seat, even if it's below Y% threshold. This would encourage qualified candidates to run, and discount people who both vote against all candidates (effectively neutral) or only vote for one-person. They would continue to be able to do so, but would lose the chance of weighing for next (X-1) top choices. Shushugah (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

As an unactive member was replaced with an active one, the result ended with a stronger U4C. I am very happy the U4c is fully operational and that the amendment of its chart were approved, and that all members have strong approval from the community. Yger (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Appeals on Hebrew Wikipedia

Original Announcement

Non-voting member appointment process

Original Announcement

When the U4C says that Non-voting members are granted full access to all U4C resources and information, does that mean technical accesses (like limited Meta adminship etc) as well? Sdrqaz (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The intent is to provide all U4C access and tools, but we are open to feedback on that point. Meta adminship and the global group do have some relatively powerful access and if people have concerns we can explore ways to reduce the amount of access given. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The page doesn't seem to directly specify it, but I would expect that any of these members should also need to Be at least 18 years old and sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (NDA) with the Wikimedia Foundation once they are appointed.. Can that be added? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

While I agree with Adrian that there are a number of powerful tools they are there because they are essential to doing the work of a U4C member. I'm not sure there are ones which are intrinsic to being a voting member as opposed to a U4C member. This builds off our WMF non-voting member, which was always intended to have full membership rights short of voting given that WMF employees are otherwise ineligible to serve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Less than 50% in election

Xaosflux has commented on a couple of volunteers for the non-voting process that they received less than 50% in the election and thus should not be appointed. On the one hand this feels obvious and common sense. A majority of the community does not trust them, why should the U4C then override that decision and appoint them anyway. Where I get hung up is the community has, and I consider this a positive, been very selective in who it is willing to appoint. So part of the idea of creating the non-voting member position is to build the skills of people the community might not yet endorse and to let people have a chance to show those skills in "real work" rather than through the hypotheticals and artifice of an election with the goal of then helping them become electable. So I'm a bit torn on whether I (and the U4C more generally) really should be declining people who got less than 50% in elections on principle and write about it here for more thoughts and discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

My primary concern is that while the non-voting members do not gain a 'vote' in U4C decisions, they will gain access to sensitive information and tools not normally available to volunteers without higher levels of community support (and in this case an actual showing of affirmative opposition to a tangential role). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The sensitivity of the access is why community scrutiny is rightfully so strict. While the responsibility of a non-voting member differs, I fully accept that the privacy/trust aspect remains similar. If there are specific privacy/conduct related concerns, the U4C can be trusted to weigh that accordingly. With no rationale attached for most support or opposes, it's challenging to weigh the community pulse, beyond the overwhelming "yes". Even in the case of Barkeep49, who was an incumbent U4C member, how should the objections by 30% of the community be factored? If the U4C "override" the majority of the community, the U4C itself should be prepared to defend its rationale. The other point is, the U4C can easily remove a non-voting member if it turns out to be a poor fit, while that is not the case for an elected voting U4C member, who serve the full-term. Removal for gross-conduct would require 2/3rd of committee to align, while non-voting members could be any procedure (effectively simple majority). Shushugah (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't the charter give the purpose for NVMs, to be to fill gaps in experience or knowledge on the committee? The committee should be able to articulate what skills or experiences it is lacking, and why appointing any specific NVM will remedy that. Appointing NVMs for other purposes, such as skill building of potential successors, doesn't seem congruent with the charter. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think saying "I want people who can become voting members because we lack certain experiences and knowledge they would bring" is at all in-congruent with the charter. And that definitely has nothing to do with the 50% question - some candidates who finished below 50% clearly have experience and knowledge the committee currently lacks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I can understand the concern - on the community side we are typically quite strict about not granting advanced access without a vote, especially viewing deleted revisions and functionary access. That said, we have precedent elsewhere for appointed members, like the Ombuds, who are screened instead of elected. I think that the U4C screening non-voting members is sufficient to meet the critical requirements of safeguarding deleted/private information, though I would certainly hesitate in supporting someone who the community has explicitly refused to return to a position that would contain similar access. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree with Xaosflux that scoring less than 50% in U4C elections doesn't show sufficient trust from the community. The 60% required for U4C voting members is already quite low compared to stewards (80%) and CU/OS (at least 70%) – appointing non-voting members with the same technical access as regular U4C members even if they gained less then 50% in previous elections doesn't feel well.

Nevertheless I trust the U4C with sufficiently screening non-voting volunteers, so I'm fine if you decide to appoint someone who scored less than 50% in previous elections – but I would like to see a good justification for such an appointment. Johannnes89 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Denis Barthel appointed a non-voting member

Original Announcement

Sure, but "why"? What was the mitigating factor that pushed the U4C to overturn previous consensus from the electorate? -- Sohom (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This was not consensus, a majority of voters (59.62 %) has supported Denis but he did not reach the required support ratio. --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The U4C didn't overturn any consensus. A voting member is not a non-voting member. The U4C decided that Denis helps to "fill gaps in experience or knowledge" and on that basis appointed him as a non-voting member which the charter allows us to do. Speaking only for myself, I am looking forward to benefiting from Denis' experience with dispute resolution mechanisms. As we continue to build out our own systems and capacity this remains an area where we have some knowledge and experience but definitely need more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ameisenigel, The electorate is made aware of the bar for electing a candidate, if folks could not agree that they should be elected, that imo shows a consensus that they shouldn't be elected to U4C (unless they apply again and the community/electorate agrees). A consensus was overturned regardless whether you like it or not. Now that being said, (cc @Barkeep49), I don't necessarily have a problem with U4C overturning consensus in this context, but my expectation is for U4C to socialize to the community "why" they decided to elect a non-voting member (like you have done here). This is not a criticism of the U4C's actions, it's about U4C being transparent to the community about why it does what it does. Sohom (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I fundamentally do not think the U4C is overturning a community consensus. The community rejected Denis as a voting member of the U4C. The U4C recognizes and respects that consensus. A completely different community-approved process exists for electing non-voting members. While the two roles have definite similarities in roles and responsibilities, ultimately voting does matter and ultimately the fact that a simple majority of the U4C can remove a non-voting member at our discretion makes a substantial difference and why the consensus about non-voting membership may not be the same as the consensus for voting membership. Truthfully, I think an accurate parallel between these two roles is that of the relationship between the consensus enwiki reached about certain AI initiatives and the consensus that you and the rest of the PTAC have reached. Overlapping, and in commentary to each other but distinct and appropriate.

And despite the that I reject your assertion that we are overturning consensus, because I understand and respect the place it came from, I still provided transparency into my thinking behind the appointment: "I am looking forward to benefiting from Denis' experience with dispute resolution mechanisms. As we continue to build out our own systems and capacity this remains an area where we have some knowledge and experience but definitely need more." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said before, the U4C is fully within it's mandate to induct Dennis as a non-voting member of the U4C. That is not in dispute. However, it still does stand that Dennis ran for election and the community explicitly declined to elect him to the U4C. I'm not arguing that what the U4C is wrong in any way in doing what it did, however, I think the U4C should qualify it's announcement with a statement of "why" the U4C (as a whole) decided to induct Dennis into the same council he was not elected to. The answer could be a combination of "a simple majority of the U4C can remove a non-voting member at our discretion makes a substantial difference" + "The U4C looks forward to benefiting from Dennis's experience with dispute resolution mechanisms" but it should be spelled out explicitly instead of us having to ask for it after the fact.

Wrt to PTAC, while I don't necessarily agree with the parallel you drew, we provided a detailed rationale explaining our consensus knowing that our recommendations might be interpreted as being different enwiki consensus. I think it makes sense for the U4C to do similar by including a single line or two going forward on why a particular non-voting member was elected (especially if they recently were not elected in a U4C election). Sohom (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss adding a rationale with the appointment, that could help to improve the transparency of the process. But I do need to echo Barkeep here: non-voting members are fundamentally different from voting members. Voting members have the keys to the nukes (as in, can vote to fundamentally restructure the governance of a project). Non-voting members are allowed in the room where those decisions happen and can (and hopefully will) voice their opinion, but ultimately are not able to participate in the final decision.

I do not view an unsuccessful result in an election for voting membership to mean that the community has rejected wholesale that person's involvement in any U4C matters. It is very common across the movement for committees to appoint advisors, with varying responsibilities, to help conduct committee functions - from ArbCom or steward clerks to advisory members on the Ombuds (itself an advisory body), to committees of the board. I also don't think that people should be rejected from those roles simply because they have stood for election to full membership in the relevant body. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The charter allows NVM's to fill gaps in experience or knowledge on the committee. It is left to the committee to determine what the gaps are, and how a NVM helps to fill it. I think a rational might be helpful to inform the community about the expertise of new NVM's. The call for new NVM's might also be better if the committee can identify what gaps have been self-identified, as it may help attract applicants with the relevant skillsets. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz I think the two cases you mentioned (Stewards clerks and ArbCom clerks) are explicitly very different roles from a NVM member since they are explicitly not part of the group (and are not afforded all of the tools given to Stewards/ArbCom members) and cannot typically have their opinions change the outcome of a decisions of the parent group in a majority of cases. A NVM member of the U4C is not only explicitly given all the tools that a U4C member might have, they can sway the opinion of the committee on all matters (even if they are not involved in the final voting). Wrt to NVM members of the Ombuds Commission, I think the goalposts are in a different place since there is no consensus building process that leads to the election of the Ombuds Commission and we are not sure what "failed to be elected" is in that context. Sohom (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

My point is more that NVM is a step between a regular user (anyone can opine on U4C cases and be part of the conversation) and a voting member (who have access to the impactful tool here that makes the concept of a U4C scary). If the U4C was an entirely advisory body I imagine the community would be less restrictive in who it selects. But fair enough if you aren't convinced, I understand the optics, and will advocate for publishing a reason alongside the decision. We're ultimately accountable to the community, and if the community views this as a problem we can and should be responsive to that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think xaosflux makes a good point. But I strongly disagree that what has happened on this talk page is "the community views this as a problem". We have one person strongly advocating for it - based on a premise that we're overruling consensus I don't think of us find persuasive, another advocating for it on different grounds (and for me interesting ones), and another disagreeing. That's not the community saying anything that we must stop and change course on. It is instead something I think we need to discuss about what we think is the right thing and act accordingly. Obviously I was willing to give my own reasons for voting for someone and so ultimately if it's not going to change our ability to make these appointments will support making a brief statement at the time of appointment. I don't think, however, that our doing so is going to make Sohom happy if we choose to appoint another person who stood for election. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 There has been discussion above about NVMs who have failed election with <50% in the thread right above and the last comment from @Johannnes89 there ends with ... but I would like to see a good justification for such an appointment. Similarly, Shushugah also said If the U4C "override" the majority of the community, the U4C itself should be prepared to defend its rationale in the same thread. I don't think I am necessarily alone in asking for a rationale on appointment of NVMs, but rather that folks in the community generally expected one and the omission of the same is jarring. Sohom (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

My comment was about potentially appointing users who scored less than 50% in previous U4C elections. That’s different to a user who already got majority support but fell short of the required 60%. Johannnes89 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johannnes89 I should have worded it more clearly, that's on me! Sohom (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think U4C is overriding the majority of the community with this appointment, and Denis didn’t get appointed as a voting member because he was a few votes short, even though he had 59% support. I don’t think there is consensus against appointing Denis as an NVM, so I disagree that U4C is overturning previous consensus. If there are concerns with any appointment like this one, we’re always available to respond; but the process of appointment involves several steps. Different U4C members may see different qualities in individuals that might be needed to fill knowledge gaps, so I believe individual U4C members can explain why they supported certain candidates when concerns are brought to us.

Some things in this thread are worth considering for future practice, but the way it reads like we’re making arbitrary decisions and overriding community majority or consensus doesn’t really feel great. BRP ^ever 06:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, according to the rules, the U4C can appoint anyone who hasn't even taken part in a previous U4C election. The prerequisites for VM and NVM are completely different (they are apples and pears). For NVM, the support is actually irrelevant, because they do not need to take part in a U4C election at all. It would be unfair to demand >50% support from some, and not from those not having taken part in a U4C election. But i like the proposal of publishing a reason for the appointment of NVM. Ghilt (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Not for nothing I was the one who started that discussion. I did it because I take feedback here seriously. That's 100% different than thinking it's representative of the community which is the phrase I objected to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I don't exactly disagree with Sohom that this comes out as a slap in the face to the wider community who ultimately rejected Denis being appointed (but I don't agree regarding the consensus bit – it'd fall under no consensus) – and a proper explanation with the full justification would certainly be nice. On the other hand, from what I can see on the outside, Denis was one of the more qualified candidates in my books who put their hands up for non-voting member and seeing how long some of the cases have taken (and that's fine – real life happens and should always be put first before an online volunteer commitment), I also don't fault U4C for picking Denis to fill in the gaps.

I do agree with BRPever here, though, and I'm sure there were ultimately good reasons that U4C had, hence why I'm not too fussed. It's a discussion worth having for future appointments. Just my 2c. //shb (t • c) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

My perspective is that this consensus "circus" is benefiting no-one. If the U4C appointed Denis, you need to make it clear that he's part of the team, albeit non-voting, and that the fact that he failed before has no bearing on his appointment. Otherwise, you're just ridiculing him, and if U4C or the community wants to punish people who failed before or require a greater burden of "proof", say that explicitly so that such candidates don't waste their time. Leaderboard (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you can expect 100% of everyone to agree, but the "consensus" question is less a question about legitimacy of specifically Dennis's confirmation as a NVM member but rather the fact that there seems to be a disconnect between how I (and others) perceive the U4C NVM position (as a extension of the U4C, but without explicit voting rights) vs how other folks on the U4C sees it (as a disparate position that has limited influence over the U4C). Thus, depending on how you read it, the previous voting consensus will weigh as either a strong negative (from my POV) or a neutral signal (for other folks who have commented) for a candidate and that is what is leading to a difference in opinion/evaluation of consensus here. Sohom (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this summarises it quite well (except the consensus bit; I don't exactly agree there); I'm glad U4C is taking this feedback into account, though. //shb (t • c) 11:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta while I am sure that there are others who agree with you on the consensus piece they haven't commented here. Where there is agreement with you is on including a summary of some kind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what is being asked of the U4C here. If the idea is that we could include a rationale for appointing new non-voting members (as xaos mentions above), I think that's a good idea. It won't make everyone happy, though.

My rationale for appointing new non-voting members in general is that we need more capacity to triage and analyze cases. While that's not exactly some "gap in knowledge/experience", I find it a pressing enough issue for the U4C's successful operation. Nonetheless, Denis was on the U4CBC, so his experience is still very valuable to us as we're still a young committee.

If the idea is that because Denis failed as a candidate to the election, the U4C should not appoint him, I don't agree. Voting is a poor indicator of consensus, especially when it's about reasons to _not_ appoint someone. We don't know at all whether some opposes are still opposes if it's for non-voting members. dbeef (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dbeef thank you for the response, that seems to be a a bit of a divergence from the charter. Isn't the more appropriate remedy for capacity issues to fill vacancies by way of calling for a special election? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely don't think it does stray from the charter. We have a gap in knowledge/experience around enforcement and a gap in knowledge/experience in process setup. The piece that makes this trickier is that we have more than zero knowledge and experience in both these categories. But as dbeef points out our needs with 8 voting members remains substantial and so there is, at least in my mind, a gap that we are filling with an appointment like Denis. As to why appointments rather than special election: I don't think calling a special election would be a good use of the community's time, especially given that we've already had two votes by the community this year. The one piece where I dsiagree with Dbeef: I think elections are absolutely a form of consensus and when that vote has a large enough base is a good, rather than poor, indicator of consensus. Sometimes it is a poor indicator of "Why" but in this case, given Denis fell one vote short, I think from the commentary we have for at least some voters it was the prospect of 3 voting members from dewiki and being a non-voting member does partially address that concern. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Lack of having committee members that have experience and knowledge in performing core tasks isn't the concern I raised, as it is addressable with bringing in experts via the NVM process. It is something that voters may want to take in to consideration when evaluating candidates in future elections. That is distinct from capacity concerns due to vacancies - a situation that special elections are explicitly designed for. I suppose the committee could claim that a committee of the current size should be able to handle the current workload, but for their lack of experience they can not. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Systemic Failure on Uzbek Wikipedia

Original Announcement

I'm a bit late here, but I'll say that I'm very happy the U4C appears to be Doing Things™ here. This looks like a fairly complex but also important case heavily impacting an entire project. For folks who, like me, were confused on what may be done to address this, the answers can be found at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#U4C_Actions. Toadspike (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ferien appointed as a non-voting member

Original Announcement

• As a note, the last vote was recorded on August 25. Some of that delay was in trying to figure out the explanation to give for appointing Ferien based on the feedback and discussion above. Some of that delay was in waiting for the ANPDP noticeboard to be updated. If this kind of delay becomes typical (and I genuinely hope it won't be typical now that we have experience) I'm going to support individual members responding in comments rather than trying to agree on an explanation as a group. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for translation

Original Announcement

• Is this a special issue only for this language - or something that is applicable to all of our hundreds of languages? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  It is a particular issue for this language. We would ideally like wider translation, but time and money... – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think there's some chance that anytime we find a systemic failure I will propose that we request, at minimum, a translation of the UCoC into that language if there isn't an adequate (non-machine) translation that exists. I also hope that we rarely find systemic failures. The Terms of Service request is very specific to the issues found in this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Addition to the U4C member right group

Original Announcement

U4C Non-voting member temporarily replaced

Original Announcement

Letter to the Community on U4C Sustainability

Original Announcement

I am reminded of this essay by Barkeep, en:w:User:Barkeep49/Elite which reflects the problem partially. This takes a heightened scale when it comes to interwiki-collaboration. Do you have a sense of how many people are following/aware of U4 activities outside of elections themselves? I can imagine most active Meta members know, but that many local wikis don't. Shushugah (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is an issue. Part of my hope is that the Elites who do see this will take the "hey let people know part" and go back to their other communities to let people know. One thing I know there's confusion around: we have 5 at-large seats in addition to the 3 regional seats (assuming no changes from annual review). So really anyone can run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a summarized statistics of Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases? (e.g. how many accepted vs declined; how many were about individuals vs communities) — xaosflux ^Talk 20:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I do hope this warning is taken seriously, both by potential candidates and by voters. The U4C's work is very important. Toadspike [Talk] 21:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the issue here is that x-wiki work that isn't done by stewards or WMF has historically been limited at best, and I think that's part of the reason behind the membership issues. Another major component is there isn't really a reason for people to have meta become a homewiki unless they are already doing global work. From a "keeping Meta from sprawling" standpoint, it's great, from a U4C recruiting standpoint, not great. (maybe consider placing this message on village pumps on wikis that are under U4C jurisdiction to help encourage people from various communities to lend a hand. All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

So far the candidates who've been elected have tended to come from medium or large projects and those coming from smaller projects have not been elected. Is that because the "right" kind of candidate from a small project hasn't run or is the community looking for the kinds of experiences that happen on larger projects? I don't know, but does give me pause about the "right" place to cross-post this announcement. I would note, however, that the U4C members who've been elected have far less cross-wiki experience than people who are selected as Stewards. I think the community - quite reasonably - is considering other kinds of experience than just cross-wiki work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's both. The U4C deals with how contributors treat each other. This kind of problems is generally not as prevalent in small wikis, where it is often the case that users focus more on content than governance, and that every top contributors know each other (sometimes even personally). In such social circles, people tend to avoid disputes; as such, they have neither the interest nor the experience to do arbitration work, and certainly not at another project. To be clear, I mean truly small wikis, those that are the first/primary/home wikis of most new and top contributors (most often, if not always, Wikipedias). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: We could add a second round of election to the regular elections where candidates who got more than 40% (threshold subject to discussion) of the vote will be reconsidered by the community. This way the community can focus on a small number of candidates and some voters who had conservatively opposed names that they did not know well can vote neutral or in favor because now they get a chance to better know this smaller set of candidates. Knowing the number of open seats may also incentivize voters not to vote negatively in the second round. The threshold remains at 60% for the second round, in this proposal. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

To illustrate proposal, if we look at the last election results, there are candidates who received between 40 to 60 % support that I voted "oppose" in the election. But knowing the the number of open seats left and based on their response to a few follow-up questions, I could have voted neutral or positive in a possible second round for some of these candidates. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps some messaging would help? The election produces two simultaneous results: First, for each candidate - if the community thinks they are or are not suitable for the role; Second, a ranking of candidates by suitability. Ideally one should only support or oppose someone if they have that opinion about them. Making "strategic" oppose votes to try to eliminate competition from your preferred top-n candidates is counterproductive to the general process. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have thoughts on what that messaging could be or where it should be? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 while the charter is clear on what must be done, it doesn't speak to why that is being done (and I don't think this needs a charter change). As to the "where" - in the voting section of the election and the election(1831)/intro section of the SecurePoll. As to the "what" - I'm not exactly sure, but additional phrasing towards evaluating each candidate in series could help (as opposed to having them assume they have to pick a block of candidates at the expense of other candidates). Voters could certainly still choose to oppose any candidate they don't support - or oppose all candidates as a rejection of the entire process. Maybe steering toward the primary question of "Do you think candidate [n] would be good for this position" more? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Additionally (and especially) when there are many open positions perhaps highlighting that the election is attempting to fill "up to x candidates" - perhaps would dissuade "strategic opposes" when voters know there are many seats open. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

With regards to messaging, endorsements for some candidates from the already elected U4C members or other community members could help. But for my proposal to work, we need a two-round election, otherwise an "oppose" vote is equivalent to a "strong support" vote for some other candidate. The second round will hopefully remove this incentive for many voters in the case that their favorite candidate is already elected. Also, with a smaller number of candidates to focus on and get to know better, some of the many neutral votes from the first round may, hopefully, convert into votes in favor of certain candidates. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Get the mean up first. Forget myself; many of the candidates who failed are pretty qualified and yet scored only in the 50s. It's not a good sight when a candidate one would call excellent (so around the 95th percentile, like BRPEver) got a 68%; the 90th percentile for steward elections in comparison is about 95%... Leaderboard (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• I think lowering the support threshold would be a simple way to fix the gap. From comparision with BoT elections and enwiki processes, private elections consistently result in at least 10-15% lower supports than public votes. If we wish to keep the same support threshold, a process similar to Stewards where the community publicly votes Support/Neutral/Oppose on candidates would result in more candidates being selected. I don't know if it will be a better process though.

Candidates from smaller wikis don't have the "broad profile" enough to get votes across the community, so "Do they hold crat/steward/etc" has become a proxy for predicting who is seated. I think we'd all benefit from more members with diverse profiles, but the only way I can see that happening realistically is liberally adding more non-voting members. I also didn't like the community pushback against some of the non-voting members, that risks being a self-perpetuating cycle of "Doesnt have experience" and "Not trusted because of no experience".

Soni (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

An automatic 2nd review of any candidates who failed to meet the 60% review would bring proper attention to those candidates, while ensuring the preferred picks are guaranteed. In 2025 there were 8-candidates above 40% and 3-candidates scoring above 50%.

Not lowering standards below 60% makes sense, as long as adequate discussion is held. Right now, voters strategically rank their preferred choices, but little context remains to their motivations. A 2nd round of voting may provide further clarity there. Shushugah (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Annual review 2026

Original Announcement

• @Civvì, you say "We will therefore continue to collect suggestions for changes until July 31". In that case, you may want to update the box at the top of Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2026/Initial Proposed Changes , which says "Proposed changes to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the U4C Charter are open for review through the end of day on Sunday, 1st March 2026." Toadspike [Talk] 19:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike: "We will therefore continue to collect suggestions for changes until July 31" is meant only for UCoC. The annual review of EG and Charter follows the announced timeline. But thanks, we will change the announcement and make it clearer. --Civvì (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)