Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Candidates/NANöR
Account | NANöR (talk • meta edits • global user summary • CA) |
---|---|
Candidate details |
|
Selected home wiki | Arabic Wikipedia |
Type of seat (regional; community-at-large; or both) (division of regional seats) | Community-at-large |
Introductory statement / Application summary (maximum 500 words): Tell us who you are, why you are applying, and your relevant experience. | Our movement did a significant milestone when completing the Universal Code of Conduct. Paving the way to enforce the UCoC is a collective effort and requires nuanced understanding of the communities and its challenges. I encountered many challenges and overcame them which equipped me with personal understanding of the enforcement and further sustainability for the communities and its members.
Having extensively engaged with newcomers in my community, I understand the transformative potential of a robust code of conduct in nurturing a welcoming and supportive atmosphere. I firmly believe that by implementing and upholding clear security channels, we can enhance the experience of all participants, particularly marginalized groups. Furthermore, I have been a member of the MEA regional fund committee since its founding and dedicated to establishing emerging communities like Wikimedia Libya. I am also engaged in global campaigns, am leading conferences, and was a Wikimania COT. These global involvements enhanced my cultural sensitivity and understanding of the communities’ differences, needs, and methods of communication, which is a vital aspect for a member in U4C to have. Building on my experience as an admin on Arabic Wikisource and an active follower of discussions on different village pumps, I have expertise in conflicts and conflict resolutions and drafting policies and enforcing them. With a deep commitment to creating a healthy environment, I am engaged in initiatives for the movement strategy like being an organizer in the SWAN. While closely following the UCoC building process and attending conversations, I actively advocated for increased participation and engagement from community members. By encouraging newcomers to contribute their perspectives, I helped amplify our collective voice in shaping this vital policy. I have been actively involved in local and global governance structures, contributing to decision-making processes and ensuring community representation in key initiatives. By leveraging my experience and commitment, I am dedicated to making meaningful contributions to advancing the Universal Code of Conduct and creating a more inclusive Wikimedia community for all. |
The following section is transcluded. You can add comments and questions on this page: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Questions.
Questions
[edit]- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 52% support ratio. While above 50%, that was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Izno, Looking at the results table I think the result I got last time was fairly well enough to encourage me to run again. The first time I ran only for the regional seat, but this time I am running for the the community at large seats to ensure diversity in these seats. Voters may look for my contributions and activism in the Wikimedia movement and communities, read my statement, and find me more suitable this time to serve on the committee. NANöR (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @NANöR, I noticed your block log on Arabic Wikipedia, and I see that 12 days ago you were blocked for 'disruptive discussions and not adhering to previous warnings.' This is quite concerning, especially since this position requires high communication skills. Do you acknowledge having disruptive behavior and causing discussions to be obstructed according to the block you received? And do you think this will affect your chances in the election? أمين (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @أمين and thank you for your question. In fact, looking at the block log you refer to, you find also that there was a lifting of the block by one of the admins who says:
- "It has not been more than twenty minutes since the warning and the intensity of the discussions is not a justification for the block".
- Also, by referring to my talk page, you will find that there is an objection from another admin to the black, saying:
- "The discussion on Village pump (policy) did not reach the point of being banned, especially since the user did not attack anyone in the discussion, and she did not make any changes after the last warning. She was not even given a chance to respond to this warning. Please deal with more flexibility."
- The two admins agree that the block was hasty and that the discussion that took place on the Village pump (policy) on Arabic Wikipedia does not require or constitute a reason for a ban. That is, there was no consensus on the block.
- I may have to draw your attention to the fact that the blocking policy on Arabic Wikipedia is not clear and depends on the discretion of the admins. If there is an objection on the block and the block is lifted by other admins, which is what happened in my case, this could mean that maybe the block does not necessarily reflect the truth. NANöR (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @أمين and thank you for your question. In fact, looking at the block log you refer to, you find also that there was a lifting of the block by one of the admins who says:
- Thank you for your response. From this answer, I see that you still do not accept the block, and this is very concerning regarding your communication skills and acceptance of mistakes and warnings. The final decision on the talk page was "the block". You submitted a request to lift the block, but the request was denied by a neutral admin, which confirms the validity of the block. Additionally, I see on the talk page that the block was due to disruptive behavior and causing discussions to be obstructed, not because of harassment or attack. I noticed that another admin confirmed the validity of the block in detail on the talk page, stating "the block is clearly and definitively valid" and provided several warnings that were addressed to you before the block. You also mentioned that "the blocking policy on Arabic Wikipedia is not clear and depends on the discretion of the admins, but I read that the block was according to the blocking policy, which states, "deter continuous disruptive behavior by blocking from editing." This text is included in the policy. I won't go into details, but the final decision was the block. Thank you again for your response. I have one last question, please: Do you believe you meet this criterion for candidacy: "Have not been blocked on any Wikimedia project nor have an active event ban in the past one year"? Thank you. أمين (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is to note that the Elections Committee have received an application by NANöR for an exception under section 2.1 of the U4C charter after the issue of the block was raised earlier. A decision will be made by the EC before final result is tallied. If an exception is granted, nothing changes. If an exception is not granted, as the ballot cannot be changed since voting is currently ongoing, the final result will be adjusted accordingly. Thanks -- On behalf of the EC, KTC (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. From this answer, I see that you still do not accept the block, and this is very concerning regarding your communication skills and acceptance of mistakes and warnings. The final decision on the talk page was "the block". You submitted a request to lift the block, but the request was denied by a neutral admin, which confirms the validity of the block. Additionally, I see on the talk page that the block was due to disruptive behavior and causing discussions to be obstructed, not because of harassment or attack. I noticed that another admin confirmed the validity of the block in detail on the talk page, stating "the block is clearly and definitively valid" and provided several warnings that were addressed to you before the block. You also mentioned that "the blocking policy on Arabic Wikipedia is not clear and depends on the discretion of the admins, but I read that the block was according to the blocking policy, which states, "deter continuous disruptive behavior by blocking from editing." This text is included in the policy. I won't go into details, but the final decision was the block. Thank you again for your response. I have one last question, please: Do you believe you meet this criterion for candidacy: "Have not been blocked on any Wikimedia project nor have an active event ban in the past one year"? Thank you. أمين (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @أمين: Would it be possible for you to provide links to the specific diffs by @NANöR that were considered to be disruptive by the ArWiki admins? Also a link to the policy that was used to justify the ban? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @أمين, the blocking policy on Arabic Wikipedia gives the right "if you do not agree with the ban that was applied to you, you must submit a request to lift the ban" and this is what I did and I did not do anything related to this ban after that. I do not know what mistakes you want me to accept and what is your definition of mistakes in this context. But let me go back to the points you mentioned in your comment, maybe I can clarify them more this time:
- Fact: My account on Arabic Wikipedia was banned for 24 hours by an admin. I requested to lift it as it is my right and it was rejected by another admin, yes this happened. But the block was also lifted by another admin and there were comments opposing the block from more than one user, one of whom is also an admin. In this case, we are talking about 4 admins, two of whom see the block as correct and two of whom see it as hasty and the discussion that took place on Village pump (policy) does not warrant the block. There was no consensus on the block.
- As for the policy, what you cited is correct: "deter continuous disruptive behavior by blocking from editing." However, we do not find in the policy a definition of disruptive behavior or examples of it, so it is up to personal evaluation and in this case to the discretion of the admins. In my account case, there was no consensus that the behavior was disruptive.
- The policy also did not define "continuous", again in my account case, the block happened 20 minutes after the warning, some admins found it hasty. Therefore, it is up to the discretion of the admins.
- As for the admin that you cited him, "I noticed that another admin confirmed the validity of the block in detail on the talk page,", thanks for his efforts and time for writing the comment to clarify his point of view about the block. By the way he was a side of the discussion that took place on Village pump (policy), which resulted the warning and then the block, and he is one of the users who actively discuss with me on Arabic Wikipedia, and it could be in a fast pace, such as this one. Thank you. NANöR (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- ElectCom decided to declare NANöR eligible.
- Sorry for the long waiting time. This was the first time EC had to decide on such a case and in the end we were busy on Wikimania. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- As for the admin that you cited him, "I noticed that another admin confirmed the validity of the block in detail on the talk page,", thanks for his efforts and time for writing the comment to clarify his point of view about the block. By the way he was a side of the discussion that took place on Village pump (policy), which resulted the warning and then the block, and he is one of the users who actively discuss with me on Arabic Wikipedia, and it could be in a fast pace, such as this one. Thank you. NANöR (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- ...