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

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

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.

Questions for all candidates

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

I think it also depends on individuals who voted as I see there were sufficient candidates on initial election from all regions, but some regional candidates didn't get enough support, so conducting election for specific regions separately could be useful and there is need for more outreach to increase awareness in respective regions from local charter and user group. ~aanzx ^✉_© 04:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the last election, we had a sufficient number of candidates from all regions, but some didn't receive enough votes. Therefore, I propose changing the qualification criteria from “The candidate must have 60% or higher of votes as calculated by support/(support + oppose)” to “The candidate must have 50% or higher of votes as calculated by support/(support + oppose).” or we could consider implementing another voting method that is not so complicated. Also, extending the campaign duration would allow candidates more time to reach out to voters and present their platforms effectively. Dera xoxo (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I would want to change at this point - after the last election, I was concerned that the complexity of the composition of the committee was possibly discouraging experienced/qualified people from running, but seeing the candidate field this election I am not sure anymore. My personal instincts would still be to reduce some of that complexity - cut a few seats from the committee, relax the homewiki requirements, maybe rework the regional seats model to have a few reserved seats for those from underserved areas rather than a dedicated seat for each region, etc. But ultimately I don't think that the U4C should decide on this alone; I think this should be a conversation with the community before the next election, once we have had time to review and reflect on the results of this election, and my objective in such a discussion would be to encourage the sharing of views and to implement what the community decides. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ajraddatz. Trying to achieve diversity is an important goal, but if it leads to a situation where the terms perhaps are not understood at first reading by the average user, it's perhaps too complex and doesn't reach the required attention. I'd be in favor of a slightly reduced complexity. I have no specific suggestion at this time. Krd 09:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first election is a bit too complex and was mandated to elect 16 members, plus the home wiki rule should only apply to cal not regional seats. This is the first time problem. Another problem that seems to have fixed is for how many questions to candidates are just not sorted, which is fixed in this case. But a long review is definitely needed as there are issues that have been discovered in this (and last) election. 1233 （T / C） 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to prevent this type of occurrence, I would suggest a different approach in the voting system where voters are not just limited to voting the people they may know but also, those they know not but can access their activities and contributions on their individual User pages. This is because, the Wikimedia ecosystem is quite a large one made up of people from different regions, so structuring the voting system in a way that voters can vote only people they know is not quite encouraging. Secondly, I would suggest an equity approach rather than equality approach. The equality approach may not be suitable in this system judging from the fact that there are more regions that are more vast both in population and contribution and are at advantage of getting more eligible voters compared to the other regions. Thirdly, equity approach could be adopted whereby, a lesser percentage for specific candidates (who may fall within the scope of Upcoming but not fully advanced Wikimedians or Candidates from a specific region with lesser advantage) would be used to measure a candidate's success. This would give space for equitable representation on the UCoC seat. Finally, I would suggest more publicity - the just concluded election was not well publicized enough. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've highlighted in one of my answers to the original election (and this is just my personal opinion), I would get rid of the regional seats (+ the homewiki rule) and make all community-at-large. This is because while I appreciate diversity, I consider the current system rather short-sighted and it wouldn't be good for the community or the member for someone to be called as a "diversity member", nor for them to have an easier/harder time getting elected just because of where they come from, or the homewiki they've selected (both of which have a degree of self-selection, and can lead to accusations of gaming the system in some cases as we've already seen with one candidate in this special election). There are other gripes I have (such as the use of SecurePoll - there was an issue in the original election where voters struggled to find out who was what in the voting panel due to the system randomly sorting the candidates); however, given the changes made between the original election and this special election, I'd like to see how that goes before commenting further. Leaderboard (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although I believe that article deletion is not too within the scope of U4C, judging by the of the discussion, I think more room should have been provided for discussion and resolution. Also, there is the need to ascertain the number of days/weeks a deletion request with no response from the individual involved should be open before a deletion occurs. This will help clear any trace of User1 feeling of not given the opportunity to speak. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q4:As part of a massive online community, conflicts are inevitable. What's a specific conflict you have been involved in, and how did you handle that? (Diffs would be appreciated) Soni (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit undecided if this question really is appropriate. Assuming a candidate has been involved in more than one conflict, which one do you request to hear about? Krd 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q5: There are a lot of aspects needing to be in compliance with UCoC, from affiliates to grants to events and menial edits. The ones can be solved locally, will be solved locally. So when it eventually reach up to you, the problem can be a big one. This is a daunting task for a committee of volunteers. How do you think you would handle a structural problem? What if the problem become so structural and intersectional beyond your scope, would you give up? Do you think you need more resources? RXerself (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's impossible to give a reasonable answer to such a vague what-if question. Krd 12:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for each candidate

1233

Questions

You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 47% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the first U4C election was a not well-baked cake, because of that many first time problems. The rules have been a bit messy (and was acknowledged in the postmortem) and the opportunity to highlight one's personal quantities were just too hard, as voters may not have the time to really read through that many questions, plus that many candidates, and could only judge only by hard stats (e.g. edit count, on-wiki roles etc.). I do think that, with the reduced amount of questions for this election, plus a more organized spot for candidate-related info, it may make a difference. 1233 （T / C） 01:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

...

787IYO

Questions

You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 37% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that representation is needed in all regions, SSA have no representatives there for the need to re-run and be represented in the UCOC for betterment and total inclusivity. 787IYO (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Aishik Rehman

Questions

Hi Aishik Rehman, three days ago you posted your candidacy, but the self introduction is still missing. Would you please introduce yourself, preferably on your candidate's page? Thank you in advance for your answer. --Ghilt (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghilt Due to the violent repression of student protesters in Bangladesh, the government shut down the Internet nationwide on July 18th. This disrupted access to Wikipedia and other sites. The internet connection has been restored today (*), and I have added my statement. Unfortunately, the connection remains restricted and slow, and mobile data access continues to be unavailable ): -- Aishik Rehman (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying! Ghilt (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the candidacy, it seems to be clear, that some of the assignment was not understood. Could you please state since when you are (point in time, not point of where) active in the Wikimedia Projects? Thanks Adtonko (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adtonko (: It was a drag-and-drop mistake during typing. I was completely offline for nearly five days due to the Internet shutdown, as detailed above. I have corrected the parameter. Please check it. -- Aishik Rehman (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding those. And I am sorry to hear what is happening in your part of the world Adtonko (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...

Comments

...

Ajraddatz

Questions

...

Comments

...

Azogbonon

Questions

...

Comments

...

C.Suthorn

Questions

Hi C.Suthorn, you wrote NWE as your region and the languages you stated are matching. Now, you are applying for the regional CEE (central and east europe) seat, as well as a community-at-large seat. A quote from your self introduction is "as some of the photos and videos I upload to Commons are either from Poland or were made in Germany and Austria but are about Central European topics". This is the only association between you and CEE in your candidate's statement. Can you allay an impression of a strategic choice of region to increase your chances of getting elected? Thank you in advance for your reply, --Ghilt (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF has defined 8 "grant regions" and the U4C uses these grant regions as the regions for the regional seats. As there are only 8 regions, only the two regions NWE and CCE are allocated to Europe. Germany and Austria are assigned to Western Europe - not only at WMF, but everywhere. However, this has only been the case since the end of the Second World War and only by chance: In Austria, the four Allies decided that the four occupation zones should become a neutral (and then actually Western) state. In Germany, the three Western Allies turned the Trizone into the (Western) Federal Republic. If things had turned out differently, Germany and Austria - on the border of the Grant Regions NWE and CCE - would probably be part of CCE today. However, culturally Eastern Europe is closer to me than Spain or Portugal, for example. For example, the history of Judaism in Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe is closer to me than that in Spain and the USA. When the invasion of Ukraine happened, one of the first demos in the world was in Berlin in front of the Chancellery and I made the effort to be there and documented the demo for Wikipedia. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C charter says „one representative from each region will be elected by regional distribution“ will be elected. Given that you are not from the CEE region (that's why NWE was your region in the last election [1]) I don't think you can run for the CEE seat. I hope the election committee can clarify before voting starts @KTC? --Johannnes89 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is to the EC to decide that. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments

...

Dera xoxo

Questions

...

Comments

...

Faendalimas

Questions

...

Comments

...

Iwuala Lucy

Questions

You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 44% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the fact that there was still no single representative from the SSA on any of the seat in the just concluded election, I still feel that there's need for that regional representation to ensure equal representation of all the regions including the SSA, hence my bid again. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwuala Lucy (talk)

Hi! I found myself confused with your answer to Q1. Could you give a couple examples to show what you mean? For example, how would you guarantee voters vote for candidates they might not know? Or how one would show contributions on different pages more than already done? I would also be interested in a mock up of what you mean by the equity distribution. Soni (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, By voters voting for candidates they might not know, I'm referring to an individual voting for a candidate who shares no regional or specific working relationship in particular but has in one way or other come across the various vital activities such a candidate has been part of or engaged in in the Wikimedia community, hence, the candidates active participation and contribution will help guaranteed for being considered when casting a vote. Secondly, there should be section specifically allotted for candidates to list their 'worthy contributions' on the nomination page so that interested voters can access and decide their inclination to vote for or against. Thirdly, I'll first share the difference between equity and equality - 'Equality means individual(s)or groups are given the same resources or opportunities while Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.' Simply put, just as I stated above, their should be different yard stick for eligibility and nominating candidates at their various levels of experience (e.g. in terms of visibility and notability in the Wikimedia space). That is to say, there should be different categories of candidates selection. Same also applies in terms of regional representation - there are regions that are still finding their feet and doesn't have the large number in terms of eligible voters and otherwise and when same yardstick is used for larger regions with high number of eligible voters, they do not stand a cahnce. I hope this will help clear your confusion. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind a follow up, could you give some specific examples? What regions will you consider in the third point? Or for the first or second points, how a mock up of your worthy contributions will look? Soni (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Krd

Questions

I find your statement rather strange - you're pretty much one of the only candidates with just two lines that doesn't tell anything about why you've applied for the role and what you've done. I'm curious on your stance on this (i.e, why you think that wasn't necessary). Leaderboard (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this may appear strange. Of course the obvious approach is to start by "Hello, my name is Krd, this is the list of roles I had, this is the list of unverifyable facts about me in private life, and this is my agenda." I thought about this and decided that this will not be my style this time, especially when the 500 words limit implies that a short statement is appreciated, so I tried to keep it a short as possible. I also think that usefullness of private life experience and qualification is often overrated, so though I perhaps could have mentioned one or another, I decided to skip that. And I don't have any agenda, but look forward to work with the group as open minded a possible. Krd 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comments I see on your 2021 steward confirmation suggest concerns that would be relevant if you're a member of the U4CC. What do you have to say about that? Leaderboard (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think some parts of the concerns are reasonable, and some perhaps are not. True is that I made mistakes when handling requests. I can even consider that I'm technically so underqualified for the steward role that I don't even understand how bad my work was. I don't think I have problems dealing with opposition to my actions, and I don't think I have have bad communication skills when being approached in a reasonable way. (I sometimes tend to be not overly helpful in return when being approached in a rude way, and I'm working on improving that.) Sadly I'm unable to improve anything regarding issues never talked about. I did quit as soon as I had reason to assume that I was not wanted as a team member, and I wish this had been pointed out earlier and with less drama. Krd 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

...

Leaderboard

Questions

You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 48% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly: I cannot guarantee that the result with change - can well be possible that the result wouldn't.

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

Comments

...

NANöR

Questions

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

Comments

...

ProtoplasmaKid

Questions

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

Comments

...

Taoheedah

Questions

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

Comments

...

Waltercolor

Questions

...

Comments

...

Ybsen lucero

Questions

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

Comments

...

~aanzx

Questions

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

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

In the earlier answer, you said you have a good understanding of our Code of Conduct guidelines. Multiple community members have discussed problems with the UCoC or things they would fix in a future review. Could you point out two or three specific things in the UCoC you would change? How would you improve our code of conduct guidelines? Soni (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In general would like to see more clarity for issues where are also different from local polcies, foundation:Policy_talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#AGF do comes to mind where improvisation is needed.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

...

Боки

Questions

Your home wiki is listed as Serbian Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about the issues that happened with Croatian Wikipedia (e.g. as discussed in Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021 and elsewhere)? Izno (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With relation to the previous question; looking through your contributions over at the Serbian Wikipedia, a pattern of behavior emerges that raises concerns about your suitability for this Committee. Section 3 of the UCoC prohibits harassment, which includes insults. However, here you call a fellow editor "a spoiled and rude brat who has not yet grown up and who still has a lot of work to do on growing up", here you call the same editor "undesirable in the community", "treasonous", and "insolent", and then you later say that you "don't understand how expressing an opinion directly and openly without mincing words is considered a personal attack". Section 3.3.2 also prohibits "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view", but in this comment you suggest organizing off-wiki canvassing by saying "who said we can't do that?" when responding to supposed canvassing by other people on the English Wikipedia. There have been some other comments, such as saying that there have "always been Serbian national traitors" and people who "aim for the spreading of Serbian history in the correct way", as well as a recent comment dismissing an article criticizing the right-wing swing of the Serbian Wikipedia by claiming that the swing is actually a "great success" for editors, and dismissing the negative picture the article might paint of the wider Wikimedia community. Given these examples, how will you assure voters that you will serve on this Committee with impartiality and fairness? — IмSтevan ^talk 09:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

...