Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2025/Questions

Are users expected to make informed decisions based on this?

An absolute wall of text providing very little insight as to what policies and actions the candidates will be spending the next several years of their life carrying out. There's surely a better and more informative way of conducting these elections. Also, is there a reason why the result of the recent charter vote hasn't been posted on the main page? Am I the only one not getting good vibes from any of this? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Homeostasis07, the large number of candidates running each year has been a recurring issue. On the one hand, the U4C has a really high case load that we hope can be fixed by electing more members. On the other hand, having too many candidates can be very discouraging for voters as it takes a long time to evaluate each candidate.

The U4C has also discussed and implemented various changes to the standard questions for candidates. Answers can be seen through clicking the link under Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2025/Candidates#Submit your candidacy. There's a question about Please describe what do you hope to do if elected but feel free to suggest any improvements :)

I'm not sure what you mean about the charter vote results. They have been published at Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2025, perhaps we just didn't make it visible using announcements. I'll check with the rest of the committee and see what we can do about this. (When I get time, I will go ahead and place some templates at the relevant pages pointing at the result or something) dbeef (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Homeostasis07: we also have a candidates guide that is much shorter and focused on user statistics: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2025/Candidates guide. --Ghilt (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: same feeling on the "informed decision based on this". But what alternatives would be better? Maybe it's the least bad solution... :-) -- TrameOscure (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Moved from the front page

 Note:So just for the record, a valid discussion was wiped, not for policy violations, but seemingly for making some users uncomfortable. If it's acceptable to ask whether someone used softwares for copy editing, then it should also be acceptable to question that question, especially when tools like GPTZero are known to produce false positives and when no policy mandates disclosure. Moderation should mean managing tone, not deleting dissent. If a user chooses to edit under an IP or uses a tool to help them write better English, that's within their right. This push for disclosure is starting to sound less like good faith curiosity and more like gatekeeping. And deleting that whole conversation, rather than addressing the concerns raised, just reinforces that impression. We should be focused on content quality, not interrogating people like they're applying for a visa. Regards! -- 41.107.110.78 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

IP, I do recognize that GPTZero can produce false positives (which is why the question was asked). I also do not wish to gate-keep against folks who do not have a good command of English, that is not the issue here.

Боки claims to have a english proficiency close to en-N (on his user page on metawiki) or en-5 (on enwiki). Directly using ChatGPT output to answer good-faith questions (without disclosing that ChatGPT was used) asked during the election of one of the highest "courts" of appeal on wiki (as appears to have happened here) shows a certain lack to regard towards the voters, who will be voting them into the UCoC, especially since they present themselves to be proficient enough to make the same responses without the use of ChatGPT. My question here is an attempt to give them a way to address the concerns. Sohom (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole they used ai shame on them line of thinking feels disconnected from the actual reality most smaller wiki editors live in.

Some current U4C members aren't exactly fluent in English either, but nobody brings that up, probably cause they didn't use ai and just muddled through. But here's the thing, the system practically forces non native speakers to use these tools just to be heard. Not everyone grew up typing essays in English. For many, it's the only way to reach the U4C and represent their communities on meta without getting dismissed or misunderstood.

It's ironic, really, the U4C is supposed to be universal, yet it operates entirely in English, assumes a high level of fluency, and quietly pushes out voices from smaller wikis where English isn't even used. Then when someone does find a way to bridge that gap using tech, not lies, they get accused of lacking authenticity.

If we're serious about inclusion, maybe the focus shouldn't be on whether someone used ai, but on why they felt they had to in the first place. Let's stop acting like the language barrier isn't part of the problem here. Regards. -- 41.107.110.78 18:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Ghilt (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Eligibility of A09 and Sd0001 comments

@Dbeef, @Ajraddatz, @Ghilt, @Ibrahim.ID, @A09, @SD0001 I would like the following questions and answers to be removed as they can easily be misused by A09 and sd0001 to influence the decision making and the voting of U4C members. They aree both mentioned in a countersuit by myself and are trying to gauge the result of that with their questions. It should not be possible to gauge the result of an case, in part or in full, until said result has been made. All questions but Q3 (question 3) where made either by A09 or sd0001. "The case" from this point forward is referring to this case between myself, A09 and sd0001.

I also have a secondary claim to re-do the election, with the ask of voters to ignore most questions asked by sd0001 and a09. If the election was not affected, then the result should show that. Also, sd0001 is not permitted to touch anything regarding SecurePoll in this election, not even the press of a button or entering a command. I would also like to point out phab:T399418, where sd0001 is requesting the list of voters to be accessible to himself, which I do not agree to due to way to high of an risk factor of misuse. T399418 may not happen prior to this re-vote. U4C is permitted to use old votes prior to the first question mentioned being asked and it is also permitted to use an old voters list, if they want to do neither, that is fine too.

The court system dissalows this kind of procedure, and actually removes judges that comment on cases they are judging. One of the reasons for it is that if a judge comments on the aspects of a case, then he is no longer impartial until decision is made. The accuser and/or (depending on the statement by the judge) the accused will in that case feel the case was treated unfairly and refuse any conclusion said judge makes.

• q8 - outcome of cases. One could easily file cases that are not neccisarily conduct issues, but conflict with the morals of the majority. The members of said majority would be found through the answer to that question.
• q3 - A09 claimed that the local community was unable to deal with the case, although he never really tested that by trying to get a third local party. That question is too similar to that accusation.
• azogbonon - In A09´s opinion his and my cultures are different. I do not think this viewpoint merits looking into as Global rollback rules say that he needs to follow local rules, his homewiki rules do not matter at all.
• denis barthel - Through the European Economic Area, Iceland actually has 70% of EU´s regulation, although it is not part of it other than indirectly through EFTA. As such, there are similarities between what is considered acceptable between Iceland and Germany. Not only does this question prove that A09 is unwilling to follow the global rollbacker rule, but it also asks about one of the points of the case.
• King ChristLike - a09´s comment only - Same reasoning as with Q3. Asking about global arbcom is basically just asking about local conflict resolve from a different perspective.
• luke081515 - Same reasoning as with the Dennis Barthel question.
• mohammed qays - Same reasoning as with Q3.
• ProtoplasmaKid - A09 has participated in the eswikisphere case as evident on the talk page Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Situation_in_Spanish_Wikipedia. This and Q3 are the only ones not involving my case. On the grounds of heavy talks inbetween sd0001 and a09 and that the question has to do with a09´s involvement, this also applies to sd0001´s comment. I do not think sd0001 can be impartial about any comment or action a09 makes.
• R1F4T - same reasoning as with azogbonbon.
• Shushugah - I mainly have issues with the "forming an elected global Arbcom" statement, but still to the point that the whole question needs to be removed. Same argument as with Q3. Asking about global arbcom is basically just asking about local conflict resolve from a different perspective.

Snævar (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Snævar, the election is over. The election committee removed all comments they deemed inappropriate during the election. The remaining comments were seen as acceptable. -- Ghilt (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Snævar Is it possible by any chance that you got the wrong username? I am not involved with the UCoC elections in any manner except for my work on the SecurePoll software.

> All questions but Q3 (question 3) where made either by A09 or sd0001.

I have not asked any questions to anyone or even made any comments regarding the election.

> On the grounds of heavy talks inbetween sd0001 and a09 ...

I have never interacted with A09. [Moderated. --Ghilt (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)]. SD0001 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Your accusations are out of this world and only show you fail to assume any little left of AGF that everyone should do. What I've asked is my thing and those questions were inline with UCOC. A09|(pogovor) 13:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, sd0001 is not permitted to touch anything regarding SecurePoll in this election, not even the press of a button or entering a command. - SD0001 is not even on the canonical yaml that tells you who has what level of access to WMF servers. He physically cannot interfere with SecurePoll elections even if he tried (since he has no access above a average technical volunteer), and even assuming the hypothetical where he had some kind of access, he could not change anything outside of obtaining/using a cryptographic exploit against en:OpenSSL encryption which would also grant him unencrypted access to a large majority of the communication occurring on the modern web lol. This is a laughable concern. Sohom (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)