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

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

What skills do you believe are important for working effectively together is a group that faces challenging or stressful situations, like the U4C? In this context, what do you think might be some of your personal weaknesses?--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say good communication skills are quite useful. You'd need to communicate with people from different cultural backgrounds, who may speak different languages, so I think this would be a great benefit. Things can get heated sometimes, so a good understanding of conflict resolution would be valuable. Having problem-solving skills is also a great plus.

My personal weakness, or the thing I was most worried about, was time management. I spoke with some of the current members to understand what I was getting into, and after some conversations, I felt confident that I'd be able to perform the duties expected of me. So here I am. Thank you for the question! :) -- BRP^ever 12:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a spirit of cooperation and mutual problem solving is important, as is keeping things of focused on the issue rather than personalizing things. I think I also bring a sense of humor which can help groups in tough situations. In terms of weakness, I can get quite passionate about some things and when that passion isn't shared by the rest of the committee or if the rest of the committee things the passion is "a bit too much" it can create some problems. I do hope the personal relationships I work to develop can help address those. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that some of the most important skills for working in a team facing challenging situations like the U4C are effective communication, self-control under pressure, and the ability to collaborate and make collective decisions. Personally, I speak Arabic, and I sometimes face challenges in accurately translating certain concepts—especially when using tools like Google Translate, which can produce different or unclear meanings. I consider this one of my weaknesses, and I try to overcome it by double-checking and consulting with colleagues before making important decisions. Mohammed Qays (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a workable group environments like the U4C, effective time management is absolutely critical for several reasons. Rapid response often needed, numerous tasks, and high expectations. My personal weakness in time management could present itself in the impact on Deadlines and Responsiveness: In a challenging situation, timely action is often paramount. My struggle with time management might lead to delays in completing assigned tasks, preparing necessary reports, or responding to urgent communications. This could bottleneck group progress, reduce efficiency, and potentially compromise the group's ability to react effectively to a crisis. Zakaria Tunsung (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an ardent believer of collective effort and collaboration; and for a multicultural setting as that of U4C - which requires activeness in listening and understanding from not just my perspective but also from another's, exhibition of stabilized emotional intelligence, neutral empathy, patience even in the face of high challenges and pressure, and most especially, conflict-mediation skill - these skills are of great paramountcy in contributing and performing effectively in such role. From a personal approach, I am quick-spirited (impatient to an extent) and I identified this Achilles of mine earlier - thanks to team work. Working with a team has taught me to a great extent on how to manage this flaw, especially, when making decisions that affect others. By allowing others to speak and leaving the decision table to join the affected parties, it has equipped me with the right skills to exhibit a high level of balanced emotional intelligence in decision making - even in a volatile or pressurised environment/setting. I believe, working collaboratively as a member of U4C will be another opportunity to utilize and master these skills effectively. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many traits that are important or helpful to successfully collaborate in the U4C, such as the will to work, communication, reflecting on yourself and your bias, and understanding the humanness beyond all the rules. In the wikiverse, participation is often critical, in any form of contributing to a shared decision-making as opposed to absence or silence. I must occasionally resist the urge to fill empty spaces created by the latter and thus become “over-present”. A "cultural weakness" of mine (as a German) is, that I sometimes can be a bit to direct, which might be perceived as rude in international contexts, but is never meant to be so. The understanding of colleagues has helped there a lot (beside some self-discipline of course). Denis Barthel (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listening skills, attention to details, the willingness to revise one's opinion in light of other points of view are all important, as is the ability to propose solutions and to work as a group to make decisions together. As for my weaknesses, I sometimes tend to be impatient and wish that things could be resolved more quickly. However, I realise that the situations U4C faces require a considerate and thoughtful approach.--Civvì (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a group like the U4C, I believe that clear communication, listening, open-mindedness, even emotional intelligence too, are needed skills. Sometimes, I struggle with impatience and overcommitting to many responsibilities, but I’ve had to learn that patience is a virtue, and currently learning to pace myself and not take on too much at a time for clarity and better efficiency. King ChristLike (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually showing up and doing the work, because depending on how many candidates get elected, if not enough are active, the U4C as a whole cannot function properly (for example, at least 8 acceptances are required in some cases). And knowing when to "step back" from a stressful situation instead of reacting and making things worse - just doing nothing is usually better and that's something I try to keep in mind. As I've said before, I consider communication skills as an area of development, though I'd like to think that I'm better at this now than before and continue to be receptive to feedback. Also, I'm a bit jealous of those that have B2-level or higher proficiency in major non-English languages. Leaderboard (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe patience and communication skill is the two skill which I mostly need to work in this group which faeces a stressful and challenging situation. I might need to face different kinds of people and for this reason I always need to be patient. Also I should work effectively and should not judge anyone quickly. R1F4T (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Communication skills and interacting with one-another from a place of generosity and intercultural sensitivity is key. It will be important to foster a culture where dissenting/diverging viewpoints can be freely expressed which will be even more important as U4C scales up in size. Expectation management about capacity and also outcomes is super important to be mindful of both individually and collectively. Due to quorum rules, absent members could also hinder the entire process. I would rather work on fewer project tasks or cases and give them the attention they deserve, which means intentionally triaging and or building capacity in the longer run. Currently there is already a bottleneck in finding enough candidates, which is why despite the time commitments I threw my candidacy in the ring. Shushugah (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working effectively in a group like the U4C, especially under stress or when addressing sensitive issues, requires a blend of empathy, active listening, intercultural awareness, conflict resolution, and a deep respect for community values. Just as important are skills in consensus-building and the ability to separate personal views from policy-based decision-making. Throughout my years of involvement with Wikipedia—authoring over 1,000 articles and translating complex policy and community content, such as the entire Xperteleven website—I’ve developed a strong ability to communicate clearly and calmly, especially across language and cultural barriers. My work in content writing and community-facing roles has taught me how to de-escalate tensions, listen first, and prioritize fairness and clarity. I believe that emotional intelligence is just as vital as procedural knowledge in this kind of work. The U4C will face not only procedural disputes but human conflicts—painful situations where contributors feel excluded or harmed. In such cases, ensuring that every voice is heard and treated with dignity is critical. I bring patience and diplomacy, especially important when stress levels are high or perspectives clash.As for personal weaknesses, I can sometimes be too detail-oriented—especially when dealing with nuanced policy or language issues. While this often ensures high accuracy and fairness, it can occasionally slow me down in fast-moving discussions. I’m aware of this tendency and actively work to balance thoroughness with pragmatism, particularly when group decisions need timely resolution. Above all, I am committed to working collaboratively, transparently, and with humility—learning continuously from others, and always upholding the values of equity and respect that the U4C stands for. Боки ✉ 20:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Communication, listening to the opinion of others, and trying to find the best solution along the different priorities the members have. Accepting people with different strenghts and knowing your own weaknesses to step back in those cases. For example some of my colleagues put a lot of work in the annual review, and it was great. However with my time available at that point and other reasons, I would not have been a benefit at that process in my point of view, so I focussed more on case coordination and gave the colleagues my feedback when they asked for it. That usually works great, since the U4C has a lot of different work to do. Luke 081515 21:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Effective communication, team work and collaboration. I think the best option is for the team to be on the same page, have one direction, one voice and one goal. The committee will consist of people from different cultural background but the most important thing is to uphold the Wikimedia brotherhood. The committee has to first set the good example of adhering to the UCoC and living by them. Also, the UC4C members has to know Wikimedia Policies extensively and live by them. My weakness here is selflessness. I will never rest when someone is harassed until justice is served and I think when electe, I will always be busy pursuing for the rights and privileges of those harmed.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working effectively in a group in a difficult context, such as U4C, requires key skills such as active listening, empathy, clear communication and constructive conflict management. Taking collective decisions, sometimes unpopular, requires maturity and compromise. I've learnt that it's often necessary to reconcile individual expectations, shared objectives and constraints on the ground. My own weaknesses, such as excessive demands or hesitancy, can be a hindrance. However, I try to turn them into strengths by welcoming feedback, challenging myself and relying on the complementary nature of the group.--Azogbonon (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think other than communication, which all my fellow candidates have identified, I would value consistency. There are many rational voices in Wikimedia spheres, but that does not always translate to effectiveness of committees. Someone who is ever present and consistently stabilising is in my opinion, more helpful than just a sane voice. As for myself, there are quite a few other candidates who are more experienced than me. I believe my experiences are sufficiently different that I'd be helpful in U4C, but there's always more I can learn. Soni (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, emotional intelligence skills play an important role working in groups especially in stressful situation, because during in such situations it requires shifting approaches or expectations. Being flexible while remaining committed to shared goals helps teams stay focused and effective. Additionally, cultural sensitivity is crucial as dealing with diverse situation you need to understand well different norms for proper decision making.Czeus25 Masele (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communication skills, working in a team/group, active listening to other members, taking combined decisions that are acceptable to almost all and sundries and a few important skill sets that are needed for this role. One needs to be adaptable to different approaches being discussed by the group, so that all options' pros and cons are evaluated effectively. Conflict resolution too might be needed many times in finalising the approach/strategy.

Total time requirement for this role is being mentioned as 1 hour/day. In case this effort requirement is not quite evenly distributed, I might face challenges. I might it could be a problem for my me to contribute 5-6 hours for various calls on a single day of the week.

13:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC) Vikram maingi (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q2

The UCoC applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces. This includes new and experienced contributors, functionaries within the projects, event organizers and participants, employees and board members of affiliates and employees and board members of the Wikimedia Foundation. It applies to all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as well as the following instances:

[Quote from UCoC, bolding by me]

Please elaborate on your off-wiki / off-line / real world experiences related to our wikiversum/movement. (Basically everything that doesn't manifest in edits) --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 02:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My off-wiki participation is not glorious, but it’s not insignificant either. I won't go into details, as I don't like connecting my off-wiki identity to my on-wiki account unless necessary. I have participated in several edit-a-thons, SVG translation events, and data-a-thon (these are the ones I remember off the top of my head), and have won quite a few. I have also attended several workshops and meetups, and helped organize one of the biggest Wiki events in Nepal. I still have my Asian Month postcard, and I helped judge the event the following year on Simple English Wikipedia.

I applied for scholarships for international events (since international travel is quite expensive for me), but the response was that the seats were limited and I couldn't be included. The events I did participate in were fun—we followed the Friendly space policies before the UCoC was introduced. Thanks for asking the question! BRP^ever 06:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German community has a long tradition of off-wiki meetings and I have participated in plenty of them since 2004, from local gatherings to the annual WikiCons and AdminCons. Internationally I had the luck to join some Wikimanias (2011-2015, 2023), beside some smaller conferences and the Italian WikiCon in 2022. Denis Barthel (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was part of the organizing team for some Itwikicons and I have organized some editathons, school projects and online writing initiatives. I am also part of the WLE Italy team. I attended some German Wikicons. While organising or participating in off-wiki events can give you an idea of how events are run, based on this year's experience I don't think that experience in off-wiki events is a necessary skill for a U4C member. --Civvì (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki, I am actively involved in event organizing and management, conference speaking, youth engagement initiatives, tool building, and language advocacy. King ChristLike (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have attended some Wikipedia meetups and conferences. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, other than Wikimania 2024. I'm not sure whether this counts either. In general, my involvement on Wikimedia is online, any offline participation is dependent on a scholarship which I usually do not get, and I do not participate in "editathons" or similar initiatives. Leaderboard (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in local WikiBaer meetups (Berlin, Germany), hosted community edit-a-thons, participated in Wikimania 2024, and look forward to participating in WikiConference North America/2025. Shushugah (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While much of my contribution to the Wikimedia movement has taken the form of article writing and translations, my off-wiki and real-world involvement has been equally meaningful in advancing the values behind the movement—particularly inclusion, accessibility, and the spread of free knowledge. For over two decades, I’ve worked as a professional writer and content strategist, helping individuals and organizations—particularly in Southeast Europe—access, understand, and share knowledge online in their native languages. This includes my full translation of the Xperteleven platform into Serbian and work with various clients in Serbia and abroad to localize digital platforms and educational content. These efforts directly align with the Wikimedia vision of making knowledge freely accessible across languages and cultures. I’ve also actively supported Wikimedia principles in community engagement roles—helping people new to digital publishing, especially from underrepresented backgrounds, understand how collaborative knowledge systems work. Whether mentoring writers or advising on content neutrality and attribution, I’ve served as a bridge between institutional knowledge and emerging contributors. In my professional life, I’ve signed multiple NDAs while working closely with clients and teams in journalism, education, and technology. These experiences have helped me navigate issues of trust, confidentiality, and cross-cultural sensitivity—essential competencies for any U4C member dealing with sensitive enforcement matters across global communities. Though I haven’t attended Wikimedia conferences in person yet, I’ve followed movement conversations closely and maintained steady off-wiki engagement by collaborating with editors, developers, and translators. I bring with me a real-world understanding of how knowledge is shaped not only by edits, but by relationships, ethics, and shared values beyond the screen. As a candidate from Serbia, I’m also deeply aware of the importance of regional representation and the unique challenges smaller or less-resourced communities face when interacting with global governance structures. I aim to represent these voices thoughtfully and responsibly in the U4C. Боки ✉ 20:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the on-wiki editing and contribution, my off-wiki engagement in the Wikimedia community involves me organizing and training members of the Igbo Wiki Fan Club I coordinate on how to leverage the Wiki tools in the preservation of the Igbo language (which was founded in partnership with 2 tertiary institutions' Linguistics Department where these participants are currently enrolled in Igbo Language programme). At the management level, I manage 2 social media accounts of 2 global campaigns in the Wikimedia community - Wiki Loves Monuments (3+ yrs) and Wiki Loves Ramadan (1 yr)- as a volunteer social media manager. In the sphere of decision making, I volunteer as a member of the Regional Funding Committee Member for the Sub-Saharan Africa where I contribute to the Wikimedia community by reviewing General Support Fund application (individually and collectively) and sharing consolidated feedback for smooth funding accessibility by communities. On the sphere of recognising, working with and encouraging communities and individuals in the Wikimedia Movement, as a working group member of the Afrika Baraza, I am responsible for coordinating the Afrika Baraza Community Spotlight which aims to recognise and celebrate emerging communities and individuals in the African Wikimedia community (which overtime has proven very effective in enhancing a sense of belonging and increasing their confidence in participating in Wikimedia activities). At the level of conference organising, I was part of the COT for the first-ever WikiConference Nigeria 2024 where I co-coordinated the programs team together with the Programs Team Lead. I have also represented my community as a Wikimedian in a youth conference for minoritised languages- as part of my indigenous language activism engagement in collaboration with the Wikimedia projects. Coming down to my home Wiki community, I have successfully engaged and utilised the knowledge I gained from my role as a member of the RFC to coordinate the 2025 Micro-Grant support in my community which supported and funded grassroot initiatives from community members and empowering them to come up with unique ideas that will support the Wikimedia community.
To sum it up, I am an advocate for indigenous language digitisation, preservation and revitilisation and also for women's digital literary. So when I am not engaged in Wiki-related activities, you will see me engaged in these duo. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't have any offwiki experience cause I don't attend on off wiki meetup or programmes but I am planning that I may attend the off wiki programmes and meetup in future. R1F4T (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I attended a few german admin-cons, some of the german arbcom meetings and the U4C meeting. Luke 081515 21:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have had positive experiences outside of Wikipedia and enjoy good relationships with people, especially within the Iraqi community. In my role as the principal of a public school in Iraq, I always encourage both students and teachers to join the Wikimedia movement, as I have witnessed the support, mutual respect, and helpfulness that characterize this community. Mohammed Qays (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to my off-wiki experience, I can humbly say I am one of the pioneer editors that created offline Wikimedia Awareness in Northern parts of Nigeria. I have organised a number of Wikimedia events, workshops, mentorships and trainings which led to the growth and development of Wikimedians within the Hausa Communities. I also attended many local Wikimedia events such as the WikiConference Nigeria, Hausa Wikimedia Meetups etc. I also attend Wikimedia programs such as Lets Connect, Edu Wiki, WikiWomen Conference (recently as a guest speaker), etc. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My most significant off-wiki contributions recently came at WikiConference India 2025, where I was part of the Core Organising Team and coordinate the Trust and Safety subteam. However, after months of work, we had to delay the conference due to regulatory restrictions. I am helping the team plan the next conference. I am generally involved in the Indian and South Asian communities, helping keep them informed of happenings in the Wikimedia movement or informally coordinate them, which we needed during the recent ANI vs WMF court cases.

Last year in Wiki Tech Summit, I was handling the Helpdesk + Unconference space, where we were assisting non-technical members from different communities by connecting them to technical contributors and translating their issues. In 2016, I helped organise Wikiconference India and was part of Grants, Scholarship and Finance subteams, as well as assisting in logistics. I have also generally attended meetups and organised Wiki workshops in my city. Soni (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have attended a few Wikipedia conferences and meetups. I also got a chance to meet Jimmy Wales over a coffee table that contained another 8-10 participants. I have also attended a WikiData and TTT Workshop sometime back.

Vikram maingi (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q3

What would U4C do if a community as a whole refuses to follow UCoC? Is it properly equipped and/or staffed to handle such an extreme case or would this require further cooperation with ie. stewards team or WMF (as it was the case with the azwiki RfC a few years ago and the following Mardetanha's closure, see diff)?--A09|(pogovor) 11:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things come to mind when reading this question. Firstly, I would try to figure out why the community refuses to follow the UCoC, what size the community is, and whether there are actual problems within the community (such as harassment, biased or false content, etc.). If there is already a local enforcement structure, I’d say this is where we should try to cooperate with them to resolve the situation and come up with measures to prevent future occurrences of these problems. If there isn’t, and if there are serious problems within the community, I’d be in favor of accepting the case, investigating the issue, and coming up with realistic measures to try to resolve these problems. Of course, help may be needed from enforcement bodies like the ones you mentioned—either during the investigation or to enforce any agreed-upon motions during the case. Also, noting that this type of case is listed as an example at Enforcement guidelines#3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations and falls in U4C's line of work. Thanks, — BRP^ever 12:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an entire community refuses to comply the UCoC, there are obviously some underlying reasons. The U4C should care to look beyond face value and ask necessary questions. Dialogue and community engagement with both leaders and members will be helpful to fully understand the why, the what and how to solve the issue. But if their refusal persists, the U4C may need intervention from the Trust & Safety Team, stewards or BOT (if necessary). King ChristLike (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Hopefully U4C will never have to deal with such a situation...) As a Coordinating Committee, I expect it to investigate, understand and address the causes of the situation. Depending on the solutions identified, I believe that collaboration with other governance bodies of the movement and with WMF is essential. --Civvì (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is a community which is completely failing to enforce the UCoC, but if there is one I haven't heard of it and I would have expected to by this point; even on dewiki which is probably the most upset about the lack of a ratification of the UCoC there are administrator actions which cite the UCoC. I think the odds of a community rejecting the UCoC in the future is unlikely, though not impossible. Obviously that is different than a community as a whole not being able or willing to enforce certain elements of the UCoC. I would want to handle such matters in the future in a similar manner to the cases we've already gotten, where there is an emphasis on building local capacity when and where possible, while also providing alternative methods of enforcement if necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can hardly imagine a whole community refusing to follow the UCoC, but if my first question would be why that is. In such a case, there might be something really wrong with the UCoC and it might be necessary to look into this, considering a change. But without further information about the reasoning of that hypothetical refusal, it's hard to think about. Anyway, such a significant event shouldn't be handled by the U4C alone. Consulting or even teaming up with the WMF, maybe affiliates, stewards, and mostly the respective community itself to overcome that situation would be necessary. Denis Barthel (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing can refer either to deleting a project, or locking editing access to a select few as explained in Closing projects policy (which is usually due to language scope or inactivity than egregious conduct). Either way this is the absolute last resort and U4C should first make effort to consult the community on what the issues are, and what remedies there might be, for example recruiting and training more editors and/or functionaries, change of policies. To take a recent real-life example, Croation Wikipedia has a documented problem of nationlist admins promoting a certain nationalist agenda. More could be done than what already has been done, but closure is certainly not one of the options that would improve the situation. I am confident, a consultative RfC would reflect the wider community pushing back against closure. Real-life geopolitical tensions are reflected on Wikipedia that the U4C or idealistic editors won't solve overnight, which is why we have Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia in addition to Serbia Wikipedia and Croation Wikipedia, despite being mutually intelligible languages. Shushugah (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a community as a whole refuses to follow the Universal Code of Conduct, it signals not just a behavioral issue, but a deeper structural or cultural misalignment with the foundational values of the Wikimedia movement—equity, respect, and inclusivity. Such a situation would require careful, collaborative, and strategic intervention. The U4C’s role in such a case is not to act in isolation or through force, but to engage thoughtfully with the community in question, assess the systemic causes of non-compliance, and initiate a dialogue rooted in understanding and policy alignment. Enforcement must be balanced with education, contextual awareness, and an opportunity for course correction. That said, in extreme cases where repeated outreach, capacity-building, or community discussion fails, the U4C should absolutely coordinate with existing structures such as the stewards, the Ombuds Commission, and the Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust & Safety team. These actors bring enforcement mechanisms, technical authority, and broader movement legitimacy that the U4C alone may not possess—especially in cases that require global bans, user rights changes, or other cross-project measures. The azwiki RfC and the Mardetanha case are useful precedents that show both the complexity and necessity of multi-layered cooperation. They also highlight the importance of due process and documentation, which the U4C must ensure in any escalated case. Ultimately, the U4C must be a coordinating hub, not a standalone enforcement body. Its strength lies in policy clarity, movement-wide trust, and the ability to mediate and escalate appropriately. I believe my experience navigating multilingual communities, working under NDAs, and resolving content or policy conflicts makes me well-prepared to contribute constructively in precisely such sensitive and high-stakes scenarios. Боки ✉ 20:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First ensure there is no COI whatsoever. When this is ratified, the next is to employ conflict mitigation strategy - since U4C is not out for fault-finding but rather to de-escalate the issue. This will involve setting up an independent body on a neutral ground that comprises regional stakeholders from the region where the community emerges from, stakeholders from the affected community, selected few from the U4C team and also selected few from either the stewards team or WMF. These independent body employing the de-escalation strategy will then work collectively to learn from the community the reason for shunning the UCoC guidelines - if there are parts that affect them as a community or whatsoever - and I believe if this is justified, a more soft-landing should be the next line of action. And this is where my response to the first question above comes to play. Stepping out of the stage as a decision-maker and joining the audience to observe the UCoC from their perspective - this is one step to rectifying the issue. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as unlikely, but I do not see why the U4C would not be capable of handling cases that are as challenging as what you've mentioned - the Swahili Wikipedia case is a good example. I could see cooperation with the WMF as helpful in some cases, particularly where legal issues need to be taken into account. Leaderboard (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my current point ov view, I don't think this is likely, but we as U4C would have to investigate then; I would like to understand the reasons and take a look if we could discuss that with the community and find a good way back to the UCoC together with the community. Of course the possible actions would depend of the urgency; if it's a serious violation, then there might be a need for a fast motion that stops the problematic behaviour and the situation can be discussed afterwards; if not then an investigation and discussion with the community should be the first steps. Luke 081515 21:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine resistance by the entire Wikimedia Communities, but if it happens then there must be a problem right from the core. That was why I emphasize the need for transparency, equality, collaboration and just. Therefore the committee must be careful and just in handling cases, enforcing achievable guidelines and ensuring the common goals of the UCoC is attained.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An entire community refusing to accept UCoC would be unprecedented, and would require similarly unprecedented measures. There is no one size fits all solution here unfortunately, as some instances would necessarily require stringent actions. (Say, if a smaller community refuses to accept equality based on sexuality). However, U4C serves the community and codifies their expectations of behaviour, not the other way round. If say, the five biggest wikis all refuse to follow UCoC, then that seems indicative of a problem in our processes. That would need de-escalation and/or rethinking our entire structure. A U4C without support of the community cannot stand, and we should consider the expectations of the community at large first. Soni (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the event of a collective refusal to apply the UCoC, U4C would intervene but would have to cooperate with the stewards or WMF, as it is not yet equipped to manage such a crisis on its own.--Azogbonon (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases, the optimal solution is to invite all parties to a comprehensive and extensive discussion. However, such a situation rarely occurs. But if it does, I believe the most important thing is to invite everyone, clarify the points of disagreement and their causes, and address them seriously. It can also be explained that refusing to engage in a thorough discussion may reflect negatively on those who reject the dialogue, with the goal of reaching a comprehensive and satisfactory consensus for all. Mohammed Qays (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If such a thing happens, it requires a complete causal analysis. If the whole community is refusing to follow UCoC, then the community's point of view is required to be understood. The point of conflict/disagreement needs to be detailed further at a micro level and then some discussion/dialogue is to be done. There can even be possibility that some point of UCoC is to be tailored for a particular community so that it is accepted to all.

Vikram maingi (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q4

Relating to DWI's question here with regards to off-wiki conduct, what do you believe the U4C can do to enforce the UCoC off-wiki? I appreciate this is quite a broad question, and I am happy with it being answered at a range of scales - for instance you could cover off-wiki events, communication channels, meetups etc. --Ferien (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C is not the primary enforcer of UCoC, not as a first resort at least. So the U4C would need to examine who else ought to, and whether there were systemic issues or multi-jurisdictional issues. So for example an editor hounding another editor in a Spanish Wikivoyage meetup should be first addressed by the Spanish Wikivoyage arbitration process and or whoever else is hosting the meetup, e.g an Affiliates group. Depending on the severity there might a community or WMF global ban. So far, none of those processes need to involve U4C. There is an pending case regarding Spanish Wikipedia including alleged conduct by Admins in a Discord. One of the methodological challenges with Discord is the ease with which people can change their names, so if I was reviewing evidence in an unfamiliar environment, be it online or in-person, I would seek feedback from those more familiar. There might be other methodological challenges with accepting evidence (which given the private nature of events or online chats, could be submitted privately if necessary) or figuring out who exactly is being discussed. Shushugah (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is realistically impossible for U4C members to be present at every venue to enforce the UCoC, so it is usually up to the event organizers and participants to ensure they are following the UCoC. I believe the U4C can assist in clarifying any confusion regarding the UCoC if needed and investigate any reported violations. However, if enforcement structures exist in the relevant off-wiki space, the issue should be reported to them. For cases related to projects where a local governance structure (e.g., ArbCom) exists, those cases should be referred there. Thanks, BRP^ever 23:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C has a responsibility to promote enforcement of the UCoC and to spread best practices. I think from the cases we have seen so far, there is a lot of opportunity for proactive work by the U4C to help with off-wiki enforcement. I fundamentally believe that people on the whole want to do right by others, most of what is in the UCoC is not controversial, and that enforcement should be done at the most local level possible. So with some more proactive work, the UCoC can help off-wiki organizers, leaders, etc with UCoC enforcement by building their capacity and knowledge. However, there will be a place for the U4C with reactive enforcement when it comes to off-wiki messaging platforms (for example Telegram or Discord) because of limited alternatives. This is different than something like affiliate work where AffCom is the high-level decision making body or conventions which will normally either be tied to an affiliate (and thus AffCom's responsibility) or to the foundation itself (in which case it would be Trust and Safety's responsibility). However, the U4C still has a proactive role to play when it comes to affiliates and conventions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the preventive activity, an activity that I would love to have the opportunity to devote more time to. I think that the first steps should be to identify and map all the different sorts of off-wiki spaces, channels and activities and who is responsible for those (affiliates? groups of volunteers? individual volunteers? other committees?) and then to list all the different guidelines and or set of rules used in these spaces (I am thinking of the different versions of FSP, the various internal rules of offwiki spaces, the different codes of conduct of groups, projects, etc.,). As soon as the current state is documented it will be possible to work on drafting best practices and suggestions. I think that this should be done seeking feedback from the different stakeholders and the communities, and I expect the result to be best practices/recommendations that leave space to be locally adapted to provide safe spaces respecting cultural differences. --Civvì (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C will not be visibly present at every off-wiki event or third party communication channels to enforce the UCoC. Ultimately, it would work better by supporting and guiding communities in the understanding and application of the UCoC (a number of communities are yet to arrive here). Any arising issue or violation will be first handled by the local event organizers or group moderators, the U4C can step in a case of escalation or neutrality concerns. I believe violations shouldn’t be anticipated, but Wikimedia-related spaces should remain safe, inclusive and respectful. King ChristLike (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct off-wiki is indeed one of the more sensitive and complex areas, but also one where consistent, values-based leadership is most needed. The UCoC is very clear: its scope extends beyond edits. It applies to behavior in Wikimedia-affiliated events (like conferences, workshops, meetups), as well as in affiliated channels—Telegram groups, Discord servers, mailing lists, and other online spaces where community members interact in their Wikimedia roles.

What can the U4C do?

1. Define clear enforcement boundaries:

The U4C should help clarify what types of off-wiki conduct fall within enforceable scope—especially where personal harassment, threats, discrimination, or intimidation occur in Wikimedia-related contexts. This helps set :::expectations and avoid ambiguity.

2.Support local event organizers and affiliates:

For in-person events, the U4C can provide training, model incident response procedures, and coordination channels with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust & Safety team. It’s essential that local organizers feel supported in both :::preventing and responding to misconduct.

3.Coordinate across communication platforms:

Many communities rely on unofficial but widely-used channels. While the U4C cannot (and should not) police private communication, it can act when serious violations in these spaces create unsafe environments for contributors, :::especially when patterns spill into wiki spaces.

4. Build confidence in reporting processes:

Contributors are often unsure whether off-wiki behavior is “reportable.” The U4C must ensure that reporting pathways are safe, confidential, and equipped to triage these types of cases, especially for vulnerable groups who face :::off-platform harassment.

5. Act in proportion and with transparency:

Not all off-wiki conduct requires sanctions. In many cases, outreach, education, or temporary interventions are more constructive. Where necessary, however, the U4C must be empowered to recommend sanctions (e.g. event bans, :::advanced rights restrictions) in coordination with the WMF or relevant affiliates.

As someone who has worked under NDA and been entrusted with confidential, cross-cultural client relationships for decades, I understand how sensitive these situations are. Enforcement must never be reactionary. It must be :principled, respectful of privacy, and focused on maintaining community health. If elected, I would ensure that smaller communities—like many in the CEE region—are not left behind when it comes to off-wiki safety and policy :awareness. Everyone deserves to feel safe participating, no matter where the interaction occurs. Боки ✉ 09:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly by awareness and support on-wiki. It is illogical to expect the U4C to be "present" at any off-wiki interactions, so I see the role of U4C as reactionary there. After all, the principles users and event organisers are expected to follow (whether on-wiki or off-wiki) are nothing new and precede the U4C. Leaderboard (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C cannot be said to be omnipresent; hence whatever off-wiki enforcement/decision they have to make will solely rely on evidence collection, clarity in terms of jurisdiction (as per within their scope of activities) and in collaboration with the off-wiki participants/organisers. Therefore, in such off-wiki scenario, the committee can work with evidence submitted to them by those involved - this is just a one case scenario in a pool of so many. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather open question, as 'off-wiki' can refer to either online spaces outside the projects or real-life events. General awareness measures should promote the UCoC and the EG further within communities, making everyone aware that they apply in these spaces too. Regardless of where a violation occurs, the UCoC can, of course, hold violators accountable when it acts as the decisive body. However, event organisers should also be enabled to do so themselves. The U4C needs to let event organisers know it is there to help and support them in preparing events as much as in dealing with any violations. Denis Barthel (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that WMF can issue in event-ban if there are serious problems. If we would get aware of such a problem, then I would propose to talk with T&S from WMF about the situation, and search for a solution. We also had some off-wiki violations in the one year of U4C already, there we contacted the people and told them that if their behaviour doesn't change, it will have consequences for them onwiki. That also worked well a few times. I can't give one general answer to that question, I think it's all about reviewing the situation and then finding the best approach. Luke 081515 21:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UC4C can be quite easy to enforce since most (active) Wikimedians try as much as possible to abide by its core principles and values, unless otherwise. There are many ways to enforce the UCoC off-wiki which are but not limited to:
1. Collaborate with local organizers, affiliates, and other Wikimedia-aligned bodies to report any misconduct or violation of the UCoC
2. Make channels easily accessible for complaints
3. Take swift action when a violation is confirmed (carefully).
4. Show no bias in taking action. UC4C members must be neutral and just
5. Consider taking advice or escalating complex cases to other disciplinary bodies like arbitration committees, stewards, sysops, etc.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a very similar conversation with a member of WMF's Trust and Safety Team, and my recommendation to them was similar - Initially, there's not much you can do. WMF T&S and U4C are, at their core, reactive not proactive. With off-wiki events, the best we can do is improve awareness of UCoC and generally recommend them best practices. We can create further resources for contributors and team members - As someone who had to create them for our off-wiki events, I find the currently available resources archaic and difficult to translate. We can reinforce the existence of U4C and other processes to escalate and handle issues. But there's not much more direct action to take until things get escalated to the U4C. The committee can handle issues that are brought up to them. Soni (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
U4C can act on off-wiki violations that have an impact on projects, including at events or on external channels. But this remains complex and requires clear protocols and cooperation with other players.--Azogbonon (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) applies only to activities within Wikimedia projects. However, it does not cover external communication channels (such as Facebook, Telegram, or Discord).

Therefore, administrators of these external platforms should always remind users—through pinned links or notices—that their spaces are also subject to the UCoC's policies.

That said, enforcement remains a challenge outside Wikimedia. For example, if someone violates the UCoC on a Telegram channel, we do not have direct authority to enforce consequences. However, the channel’s admin can take action.

This is why collaboration is crucial: we must ensure that platform admins understand the UCoC and know how to implement its policies when needed. Mohammed Qays (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q5

Would adding U4C clerks to help the U4C with case management and duties similar to enwiki Arbitration clerks be a net benefit to the process, or should it be avoided? All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is something the U4C committee should decide. For me personally, it generally makes a lot of sense especially with formatting and speedily responding to public queries. From what I have seen, the communication of U4C has generally been responsive, and backlogs were usually due to quorum issues and or evidence gathering/deliberating, not clerking overhead. It would also potentially be a way for declined but qualified nominee (a number of them from 2024 special election) to build a relationship with existing U4C members and provide insights. I am unclear if enwiki Clerks sign Access to nonpublic personal data policy, which would be a potential issue of U4C jumping the election process, to expand access, however that happens in a more formal sense with Wikimedia Foundation anyways, which has non-voting members on U4C, that are not subject to community input. Shushugah (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally yes having clerks would be great. However, there is only so much global capacity. Is it better to have someone spend time being a U4C clerk or being a global rollbacker or a local admin or some other useful role? I don't know. I would love to see us see what we can do with building tools to help us self-manage before taking away editor time from some other task. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t really say without experiencing both the internal and external work myself. It also depends on how many users are elected this year. Based on the number of cases I’ve seen so far, perhaps not at this time. However, this is something that can be considered in the future, depending on the need. BRP^ever 06:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While indeed (clerk > no member), I am not sure (without being a member myself) at this time how much work can be offloaded to the clerks and I'd rather have a full member than a clerk. Based on what I've seen publicly, I do not see enough evidence of clerks adding value to the process at this time. Leaderboard (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really answer this, sorry, as my experience comes from the German ArbCom and there as in the rest of the world ArbComs work well without clerks. But of course, in a large project like EN that might be different and it might turn out the same for the U4C in the future. As of now though I don't see the pressing need to install this role and thus would close with "Let's cross this bridge, when we come to it. Denis Barthel (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the English Wikipedia arbcom processes so I have no idea what the clerks do. Until now, I wouldn't even be sure in what areas helping roles could be useful. --Civvì (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that introducing U4C clerks—in a role similar to the Arbitration Committee clerks on enwiki—could be a net benefit, especially as the volume and complexity of cases grow over time. These kinds of support roles could help streamline administrative tasks, track timelines, ensure procedural consistency, and allow U4C members to focus more on the core work: reviewing cases fairly and thoroughly. That said, I think it’s important that any clerk system be implemented gradually and transparently, with clear expectations and accountability. It should also remain community-oriented, not turn into a bureaucracy of its own. Clerks should assist, not replace, the judgment and responsibility of the U4C members. Боки ✉ 19:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a good thing considering the large number of Wikimedia users and with time the number of complaints may overwhelm the committee,- so clerks may help ease and fasten complaints handling and resolutions. The clerks have to be very close to every community, both locally and internationally. They have to know the UCoC's guidelines and have to understand the traditions and cultures of such communities. (for instance, I was reading recently and found out that the word 'Eskimo' is regarded as abuse in some parts of Greenland, while in some places it's ok)Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of U4C clerks—modeled could be beneficial to the logistical processes of the U4C - however, before such a decision is made, roles should be clearly defined to avoid overlapping and not allow any form of influence from them whatsoever. This way, the U4C can focus more on very important tasks and not exhaust their time on these tasks handled by the clerks. :Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinions on clerking. I have seen processes work with or without clerks, so I think members currently in the U4C can judge better if there's a significant workload requirement for them. Ultimately the load bearing parts of the committee will be the members, any bureaucracy afterwards should be to facilitate that better. Soni (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q6

How will you make sure the Universal Code of Conduct is applied fairly and consistently across all Wikimedia communities, especially in smaller or less-represented ones with different languages, cultures, and fewer admins?--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 02:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a very important question, especially for someone like me who comes from a smaller Wiki community. To make sure the Universal Code of Conduct is applied fairly and consistently across all Wikimedia communities, I believe we need to focus on two things: understanding the differences between communities, and making sure those differences don’t lead to unequal treatment. Smaller or less-represented wikis often face challenges like language barriers, fewer admins, or a lack of formal processes. The U4C needs to be especially careful not to overlook these communities. That means offering support—not just enforcement. It also means making sure materials, communication, and tools are available in local languages, and that the people reviewing cases understand cultural context, not just policy wording. We also need consistency. If similar behavior leads to different outcomes on different projects, that erodes trust in the UCoC. That’s why I believe in transparency, clear explanations of decisions, and making sure smaller communities have the same access to support as larger ones. Finally, I think collaboration is key—working with stewards, affiliates, and trusted community members instead of acting unilaterally. The goal is not to impose rules from above, but to build a culture where everyone knows what’s acceptable and feels safe contributing. That’s how I see my role—someone who listens, understands the challenges smaller projects face, and works to make sure the UCoC truly protects everyone, not just those in well-resourced communities. Боки ✉ 05:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There will need to be a wide variety of locally informed strategies to enforce the UCoC. Even if the standards are consistent, it is a given that enforcemement will be unevenly developed and a continual process. I elaborated further in my second answer in the questions directed towards me. Shushugah (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say by helping improve UCoC awareness among smaller or less-represented communities. This can be done by creating training materials in different languages. It’s also important to ensure that communities are able to identify and report UCoC violations to the appropriate enforcement structures, so raising awareness in that area is also necessary. Of course, to maintain fairness, the process should be as transparent as possible, avoid any possible conflicts of interest, and include an option to appeal any decision that is considered unfair. Thanks,--BRP^ever 06:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the fair and consistent application of the UCoC in all communities especially smaller wikis, there is need to prioritize translation of guidelines and training materials into their respective languages. The capacity of local admins, event organizers and community leadership, need to be built, with regular monitoring and feedback. Cases reported to the U4C by users from smaller or less represented communities would be treated without bias or prejudice. King ChristLike (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to promoting awareness of the UCoC, especially in cases where cultural differences turn out to be problematic, this is closely related to Q3. In such cases, the U4C must evaluate whether the problem lies within the UCoC itself and, if so, how it can be changed to reflect this. In terms of enforcement, the U4C has handled this well so far by not adopting an authoritarian approach, but rather exploring opportunities for communities to find their own solutions and grow. I would not want to change this approach, but rather to strengthen it as I believe more in respectful motivation than rulership. Denis Barthel (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C has a role to play in helping build community capacity and spread "best practices" with enforcement. I think this is a a place the U4C has a lot of opportunity for more work, something I touch on in my candidate statement and other answers. I hope to do more personally and hope we as a committee do more. The UCoC needs to be applied universally and enforcement of the UCoC needs to be fair. However, it does not need to be consistent across projects. The Enforcement Guidelines specifically permits communities to make their own decisions on how to enforce the UCoC and I support this local control. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This year we have already ecountered some smaller but fast growing projects and communities that have limited time to devote to the creation of governance procedures. Defining some best practices to share with them and offering assistance to identify weak points or priorities in the creation of fair procedures and in the ways to adapt them to their linguistic and cultural realities is something the committee has not had enough time and resources to do for so far. I think it is also one of the most interesting activities. --Civvì (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmm. I can relate very well to this question. For fair application of the UC4C, especially in culturally diverse communities (like mine), it is important to consider the norms and values of those communities. Taking note of the cultural differences and beliefs about the UCoC. The questions will be: Would the UCoC fit into every community, or is there a need for adjustments? I have been following through with the UCoC right from its inception and there was a time when those guidelines were subjected to the entire Wikimedia communities for review and I think it has been shaped towards meeting these demands. The only thing is the change that may come after the committee has started working, if there is any guideline that contradicts any community, it can be subjected to review for change or removal.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, that is why there's need for full regional representation. Each representative can support their regions either by organising online sessions where regional members can join to learn more about the UCoC guidelines and precepts or presenting at local Wikimedia events (online and onsite). Also, it is observed that some of these guidelines have been translated to various local languages, however, not all languages has been represented - these should be considered with all seriousness to ensure linguistically balanced community. It is also recommended that while there's need to localize these guidelines, it is very pertinent that there is conscious efforts towards localising UCoC training materials so as to ensure context and cultural awareness of the core principles of the UCoC. There is also need to respect and uphold transparency in decisions and feedback - bearing equity rather than equality in mind. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my other U4C candidates in the need for further representation. It is impossible for U4C to be completely fair and consistent without guaranteeing sufficient voices from the Global South to give relevant contexts and advocate for the communities. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily up to the candidates themselves, so I urge voters to try and vote Support on at least one member from each region.

Otherwise, the best we can do as committee members is to seek our diverse voices whenever possible. The committee can informally consult with community members with experience. And try their best to adjust expectations when a community is uniquely different from usual. There's many community members who just care about the projects and don't necessarily know all our processes. From my experience advocating for them, we need more loud voices to help translate their issues, for U4C as well as in the wider movement. Soni (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By on-wiki awareness and in particular making it accessible for users in such communities (who may not speak English or a major language). That itself will go quite far, because then more users (especially non-admins) will get an understanding of U4C and how they can report any issues they may face. The cultural aspect is tricky, however, and as the Swahili case demonstrates, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach. I could see the U4C coordinate with WMF or the communities in this area. Leaderboard (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The key element is to communicate with all parties involved in the conflict, ensure they understand the ongoing procedures and their consequences, and always encourage them to engage in discussion with one another on the Meta page. Additionally, they should be provided with legal and linguistic support whenever needed. Mohammed Qays (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q7

If possible, could you select a case that was filed to the U4C in the past year, review it, and share your perspective? Any observations or feedback you have, either for the parties involved or for the U4C members who handled the case, would be very helpful in evaluating your candidacy. Thanks in advance if you choose to answer this question. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is difficult to answer. I could do this, but it would be incomplete and even possibly misleading because a lot of the evidence and discussions are private. Leaderboard (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Leaderboard says. However, two of the cases I followed most closely last year were those involving German Wiktionary and Swahili Wikipedia. Both were fairly small but functional projects, but their governance showed signs of misguided development at certain points. The way U4C addressed the problems, combining “as much enforcement as necessary, as much self-regulation as possible,” was exemplary in my view and I was very glad to see the outcome. Because pure enforcement, even if some people see it as “poor” or “doing nothing,” is rarely a way to change things for the better in the long run. Denis Barthel (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Leaderboard noted, I acknowledge limitations of judging case requests solely with publicly available information. I still would comment on the Greek Wikipedia case. I think the U4C motions pragmatically and adequately addressed the individual concerns raised by Nervren and ThecentreCZ (the two blocked editors), but I would have raised some more questions in response to concerning statements about possible lack of appeal process, or UTRS possibilities. I would have sought more input from other Greek sysops, before concluding there is no systemic failure and written a conclusion for wider Wikiverse community, so they can understand better the U4C thought process.

I note that Kalogeropoulos (who blocked for alleged socking) did not publicly respond, but also that U4C mentioned private communications happened, so for lack of internal context, I naively assume that's related with all? other parties responding.

I would have made more explicit recommendations or binding motions, to implement an unblocking process on Greek Wikipedia. There is still to date, no Greek policy or noticeboard explicitly dedicated to unblock requests, and I am unsure why the admin recall page el:Δημιουργία: Βικιπαίδεια:Αφαίρεση δικαιωμάτων/2024/Εὐθυμένης remains deleted, instead of archived. There likely could be good explanations for all of these, but they were not asked nor addressed in Civvì's (U4C) questions to Εὐθυμένης. Shushugah (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I have been pleasantly surprised by how much they managed to do with a team of only 8 over the past year. Some of the issues have persisted since even before the UCoC, and it has been good to see the U4C finally acting on them. One of the cases I gave feedback on is here, and I believe it was appropriately handled by the U4C. I don’t think it would be right for me to comment on other cases without properly reviewing all the relevant materials. Thank you.--BRP^ever 21:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One case I’ve reviewed is the Allegations of discrimination in ArWiki, filed in early 2025. The complaint centered on a page from Arabic Wikipedia that referenced the national origin of abusive sockpuppet accounts. The concern was that this could be interpreted as discriminatory. However, U4C members unanimously declined the case, stating that the material did not violate the UCoC. They emphasized that referring to countries in the context of abuse patterns, especially with factual evidence and no targeting of individuals, did not constitute hate speech or incite harm.

I support the outcome and appreciate how the U4C explained their reasoning publicly. Cases like this underline how important it is to distinguish between intent to inform and intent to discriminate. That said, I believe the committee could go a step further in offering short, formal summaries with each case closure to improve understanding and transparency, especially for newer or smaller communities who may not follow every detail. This would help reinforce fairness and trust in the process, which I see as essential to the U4C’s long-term role. Боки ✉ 23:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered my thinking at the cases we have had so I would suggest going to a case for my thinking. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need to engage with and demonstrate my unbiased disposition in matters that require critical and analytical thinking. However, I may not be able to pick up a specific request and offer my perspective to it due to the fact that there may be some minute but very important details that I may not have access to to offer unbiased feedback. But if given an anonymised case just as the one I responded to in my Individual Question I would be able to offer an unbiased feedback to showcase my critical thinking and impartiality. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about this question for the past couple days, and realised I just find the idea of opining on cases while not being on the committee, not ideal. I have opinions on several cases that I am happy to share in private, but otherwise I would prefer to decline. I have my "What could U4C do better" answered below on my personal section, that tackles adjacent matters. Soni (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q8

Which U4C candidates do you appreciate? It can be from working together or general impressions you have Shushugah (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this question. I think it's been hard for the community to appreciate the work Luke081515 has done on the U4C. He has been a vital member behind the scenes in setting up processes, has done a huge amount of work on the Hebrew Wikipedia case, and also takes excellent notes (he's to credit for the report from our in person meeting, for instance). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a good conversation with Soni, and I appreciate their passion for representing the South Asian region. Civvi has been friendly and has done a commendable job over the past year as a U4C member. Barkeep49 deserves thanks for consistently providing insightful comments across discussions. And a big appreciation to everyone else who is running for a role that may seem detached from visible content, yet plays an important part in supporting users and communities facing difficult problems. Thanks,--BRP^ever 21:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be general with this question, as I do not want to antagonise or otherwise make my fellow U4C candidates feel inferior. That being said: I'll agree with Barkeep49, in that a person that primarily focuses on the backend (i.e, looks "invisible") should be rewarded just as well as a person that is more on the frontend (i.e, more "visible"). This is not just a U4C thing though - I'm reminded of Albertoleoncio's SE2025 confirmation as an example. Ultimately, my goal is to recognise each member for what they can do/have done, and that can come in many different ways that aren't obvious. Leaderboard (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working together before in various roles with Barkeep, Civvi and Luke and there are many things I admire them for. That being said, this is just because I've already had the opportunity to work with them, and it doesn't set them apart from the other candidates with whom I haven't yet had the pleasure of collaborating. Denis Barthel (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know most of the candidates in this election. I have had interactions with Barkeep, BRPever, Shushugah, and I think all of them would be excellent for the committee if they were elected. I remember Leaderboard from the last time they ran in the U4C, and my overall sentiment was positive. Soni (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Barkeep49 wrote about Luke081515 and his behind the scenes work, he also does a lot to try to remind us of the timelines of the cases. I enjoyed working with Barkeep49 and appreciate his ability to consider an issue from all possible angles. --Civvì (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q9

Do you think U4C candidates/members should be identifiable with their real-life public identities? Shushugah (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I don't see why? They're just like any other contributor, after all. Leaderboard (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Denis Barthel (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I am aware of many competent contributors who will definitely not be participating in U4C if it was mandated. Public facing positions, on a project like the Wikimedia ecosystem (where many contributors retain anonymity) require a much stronger reason, such as being a member of Board of Trustees or similar. Soni (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a reason for this. --Civvì (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not agree to that even though it encourages accountability. However, it can be made an optional proposition guided under the principle of NDA so that those that choose to be identified do not reveal those that chose to be anonymous. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q10

Please share your thoughts on the long lasting hard-core deletionism on the Spanish Wikipedia.

This 2015 post gives us a glimpse into "los bloqueos para siempre de usuarios veteranos y con mucha y buena producción".

My very short but relevant experience (four edits on 12 oct 2023) could be summarized as follows: just for trying to expose the bot-like reversions of two highly potent users ( [1], [2]), I was blocked. Indefinitely. It's a routine.

Apart from a consolatory but otherwise useless rfc, there are no effective tools to stop these practices. U4C doesn't deter the deletionist users from abusing the inclusionists. This is for a simple reason: U4C was only concocted to fool the unaware donors. - Coagulans (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what us candidates are supposed to do here, sorry. I also lack the background to comment on the case you're referencing on the Spanish Wikipedia. Leaderboard (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no thoughts on your statement, sorry. Denis Barthel (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C doesn't get to make content decisions. I would challenge the idea that the U4C is meant to only "fool unaware donors" given our active cases, including on eswiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Barkeep49 stated, the UCoC does not cover content disputes, assuming they are purely content disputes. There is currently nothing prohibiting the absence of an appeal process for those who are blocked. My personal opinion is that it should be possible for someone to appeal a block, but I think wider feedback would be required why it is currently like this. Why do many wikiverses not have appeal processes? Is it due to limited capacity or something else? This is not something U4C should facilitate, but given that U4C needs to understand differing wikiverse practices, U4C members likely would have a shared interest in understanding these differing norms. Shushugah (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question that is not relevant at best, or a potential UCOC case, at worst. In either scenario, I would decline to answer this. Soni (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as fellow candidates has stated, U4C work within their stipulated jurisdiction and looking at the case you stated, this falls outside the U4C jurisprudence. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q11

The European Digital Services Act has added significant legal obligations that may affect how Wikipedia and other platforms operate. How have you perceived the impact of such legislation in the past, and what changes (if any) would you expect? I‘m particularly interested in measures that have been or might be necessary to address systemic risks. FortunateSons (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor based in the European Union, whether I like it or not, I am bound to to EU legislation. For some European legislation, like GDPR; Wikimedia voluntarily upholds itself to a much higher standard globally, benefiting all readers and editors alike. The relation between weaker/stronger laws and Wikimedia is outlined in Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Human Rights Policy. It is not always straight-forward, and sometimes Wikimedia needs to determine how to best protect itself as an organization, its principles and its users. An example of legislative tensions might be European cases calling for the right to be forgotten, which conflicts...with well, right to access information. Either way, these are questions I would not opine in my capacity as U4C, but as an engaged individual. Shushugah (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer nor in any other way qualified to give statements on legal matters. That's why I am very glad that Jacob Rogers as legal advisor is a part of the U4C. I'd expect that Jacob would inform the U4C on any issues when it comes to such questions, thus it can take this into account. Denis Barthel (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I expect will be handled by coordinating with the WMF, as they have the personeel and resources (such as what Denis mentioned above) to advise and make decisions accordingly, and not us volunteers, most of whom (including myself) lack the background to make accurate comments on legal matters. Leaderboard (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this falls within the confines of the Foundation's Legal team - I have little or no legal knowledge to respond correctly to this. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q12

Optional bonus question: would you - as an individual or a Committee member - be in favor of Wikipedia's participation in soft law, such as codes of conduct against hate speech and disinformation? (Articles 45-47 of the DSA) FortunateSons (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation is an important topic, but it is outside the scope of U4C. In my mind, Universal Code of Conduct is a fitting example of Wikimedia's adoption of "soft law". If there is any form of hate speech that is not covered by the UCoC, then a review should amend that. Further loosely defined principles are outlined in founding principles e.g fostering a welcoming environment. Some projects, like Wikipedia have a stronger need to define disinformation, while another creative project like Wikispore:Main Page less so. Shushugah (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the UCoC does (quoting Shushgah)? Also, even without the U4C, the community itself (and WMF) practices "soft law", because it's not like the community is going to tolerate hate speech or disinformation. Leaderboard (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is already participating and practicing soft law with some of it founding principles as already stated. Also, if there is further need for expansion so as to ensure inclusion and equity, such should be carefully evaluated to ensure it does not lead to situations that would compromise the foundation's standing and core founding principles. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for specific candidates

Azogbonon

Given your limited crosswiki experience, how would your described initiative organizing skills reflect in handling of difficult crosswiki cases where parties of multiple cultures are present? Do you think you would be underqualified for decision making posts with current permissions?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify whether you've used AI in your response? //shb (t • c) 05:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focused on protecting women editors: How do you plan to address the specific harassment that many women editors face within Wikimedia projects, especially in contexts where gender bias and discrimination are more prevalent?Tiputini (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the second time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 45% support result in the 2024 special election. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not answering any questions in order to show a break with the various shortcomings of Wikipedia in the past? Thanks. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49

Q1 What do you think is the biggest problem with the U4C's process in it's current form? All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think our processes are only available in English, are incomplete, and are imperfectly implemented because of the work being asked of 8 volunteers. This imperfection often means the U4C misses deadlines, but also can be work not happening because of lack of capacity among the active members at any given time. I hope the U4C ends up with more than 8 people after this next election (especially because for most of the year only 7 of us have been active). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BRPever

Civvì

1. On prevention and systemic harassment:You emphasized the importance of U4C’s coordinating role, especially around prevention. What kinds of preventative actions or training materials do you think would most effectively reduce harassment against women and other marginalized editors on Wikimedia projects?

2. On collaboration and inclusion:You mentioned a learning curve and a supportive team dynamic. How would you ensure that this inclusive spirit is extended to all community members, particularly those who may not speak English fluently or who feel marginalized within global decision-making structures?Tiputini (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiputini, thanks for your questions, I apologize but I am not completely sure that I understand the second one.

Specific training material with real examples of harassment and discrimination of marginalised groups would be needed, during the preparation of the different drafting phases of UCoC and EG lots of examples were collected. I think that those should be used and updated with more recent reports and with community feedback to create specific resources about how to identify harassment and how to report it. Specific training material should also be translated and made available to as many communities as possible.
If your questions refers to U4C membership being one of the members who is not a native speaker and sometimes needs more clarification I will certainly make sure that any other members in the same situation have all the support they need. If I did not understand the question, I would ask you to please rephrase it so that I can respond appropriately. Thank you for your patience. --Civvì (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Civvì your response was helpful. I understood from @Tiputini (and would ask this myself otherwise) how to involve the wider Wikimedia community. So editors, who are not in close contact with U4C, or the UCoC process in general. How would you make them more included and supported? Shushugah (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Civvì. Your response clearly shows that you understood the question very well, and I truly appreciate how clearly and thoroughly you expressed your ideas. I especially agree on the importance of having specific, updated, and translated training materials that include real examples to help identify and report cases of harassment and discrimination. I also value your sensitivity towards non-native speakers and your willingness to support other members in the same situation. Thank you again for your commitment and clarity.

@Shushugah that's a very important point, thank you for raising it. Involving the broader Wikimedia community — especially editors who are not directly connected to U4C or the UCoC process — requires proactive outreach and accessible communication. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiputini (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shushugah and @User:Tiputini I completely agree with the expectation of accessible communication, especially with regard to preventive activities (like best practices and training materials) but also in the responsive part of the activity. The expectation of proactive outreach is, in my opinion, more delicate. Functions and responsibilities of U4C are defined and limited by the charter, so while U4C should be ready to offer support where needed and when requested, it should also respect the principle of subsidiarity and empower local projects and communities to manage governance at local level. --Civvì (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Civvì. Your last admin reconfirmation on it.wiki was quite contentious, with some opposing votes and several heated discussions. While most of these disagreements related to internal matters, there was also some dissatisfaction with the UCoC and the wave of policy changes it brought about - for example, one admin complained that these policies "came from outside" it.wiki and were "disruptive". In this context, I'd be interested to hear your views on the level of acceptance that the UCoC and U4C have received within your home wiki and other local projects you're familiar with. More specifically, since the U4C is not intended to intervene in UCoC enforcement when local projects demonstrate sufficient self-governance, how would you assess the recently established it.wiki ArbCom? This ArbCom does not have the authority to desysop in cases of UCoC violations, and it conducts its proceedings behind closed doors, without community oversight. This raises the issue of how to address a UCoC violation by a sysop who retains the local community's trust. Do you see a tension between the current structure of the it.wiki ArbCom and the UCoC's requirements for scrutiny of abuse of power or influence, as well as its emphasis on fairness and transparency in enforcement? --Gitz6666 (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Itwiki introduced Arbcom and a formal blocks appeal procedure in less then two years, I think that it is fair that not everybody is happy about those changes, on the other side there is also a chance that a silent majority welcomes them. I don't recall seeing any heated discussions or posts of protest at the VP or elsewhere. I am not active enough on other local projects so I can't say anything about them. As in everything there is probably room for improvement but it also seems to me that there are participated ongoing discussions.
2. The guideline does not set limits to the remedies the arbcom can enforce. As far as I can see the Arbcom was established after a well participated community discussion and so far the participation to the elections seems good. The number of cases is very small but at a quick reading of the motions I do not see issues. I think these new procedures should be given a little more time before an assessment can be made. --Civvì (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I agree with your impression - or perhaps your wish - that the "silent majority" on it.wiki welcomes the UCoC and the policy changes it prompted, most notably the block appeal procedure. Regarding the ArbCom, I interpret the guideline as setting clear limits on the remedies that can be applied (see here, first point in the bulleted list), but if I'm wrong and future practice will bring about unforeseen developments, all the better. The absolute secrecy of all its deliberations is still baffling. Gitz6666 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Civvì, but italian guideline seem to set strong limits on ArbCom, e.g. "does not process appeals or complaints that do not primarily concern the application of the UCoC, such as those relating to user access levels;[2]" and "It does not change the guidelines and policies, nor can it establish new ones." ([3], translated with G.Translator). Is this your idea of "the guideline does not set limits to the remedies the arbcom can enforce"? I don't understand how you interpret the it.Arbcom guideline in a hypothetical UCoC-related abuse of advanced rights (that the policy seem to exclude a priori can exist), or if the incompatibility of a policy with UCoC was highlighted, even if such cases were considered non-problematic by the community.
In these situations, can arbcom do something, in your opinion?

If yes, would you actively support, as U4C member, an appeal to the arbcom on these topics also in a situation in which "the community" has rejected the issue?

Tks -- TrameOscure (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The guideline does not set limits to the remedies the arbcom can enforce" means exaclty what I wrote, nowhere in the pages about the Italian arbcom I read a list of sanctions so I assume that in case of a violation of UCoC the removal of rights could be considered as a possible sanction.

"come ad esempio quelli relativi ai livelli di accesso degli utenti" in my personal interpretation means that requests or appeals against actions made by (any sort of) advanced rights holder which are unrelated to UCoC should be dealt by the existing community procedures which are listed in the footnote.

If in your opinion something in the guideline or in the workflow of a local arbcom is not clear you are of course free to write to the arbcom and ask for clarifications. --Civvì (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Civvì, you had declined a case request by me, with the following statment: "I decline the request, local rules were violated." Since you are not a community member of that particular project (ArWiki), could you explain how you came to the conclusion that local rules were violated? I believe this will help the community understand your approach in general with respect to the local rules and guidelines. Thanks in advance if you choose to answer this question. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a challenge to read and understand local guidelines using translation tools, sometimes we can internally resort to someone who speaks that language and sometimes not so clarifications are needed. It is also relevant to understand what kind of consensus has been formed regarding interpretation of the guidelines, in the specific case local consensus was in the direction of not allowing promotion of an Incubator project. --Civvì (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czeus25 Masele

In April 2021, you were blocked for a year on Commons for "sneaky vandalism". During a discussion of the block, you said that your account had been used by people other than yourself—"I had two college students whom I'm sure they used my account". The U4C deals with private and sensitive matters, and so account security is paramount. Can you elaborate on this incident, and what you have done to improve your account security since? Giraffer (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Giraffer its true the U4C deals with private and sensitive matters and hence account security is paramount, since that incident I have taken my account privacy and security serious by making sure I'm logged out of all devices, and if I'm required to apply more measures securing my account, I'm open for instructions from stewards on how to do so. But let me elaborate the incident. I'm one of the sw.wikipedia programs coordinator and event organizers. There was this program of adding descriptions of photos using one of the new tools that was being tested by then and as it was sort of a competitions in local communities, hence I was part of team-teaching college students in our community on how to do so and explain all about the competition and prize. Since these two guys were the people, I knew for sometimes and had no phones hence I let them continue with the competition from one of my devices, explaining to them they should log in into their account and continue editing. after somedays when my account was blocked they contacted me explaining they cannot edit anymore, I investigated I knew that in some days they were not logging in to their account since the tool remembered my credentials, and as they were competing counting the number of edits sometimes, they were not writing irrelevant descriptions just to add the number of edits, some of which I was able to revert and correct before I was blocked. I tried to explain to the competition organizer, but I had to bear the consequences. since then, I learnt my lesson and I have taken privacy and my account security seriously. As part of knowledge sharing, I have been giving advice in most of the outreaches citing this example as part of lesson on security matters. Thanks. Czeus25 Masele (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Barthel

You are running together with two other members of dewiki ArbCom. While running for such post doesn't mean cutting friendships one has formed over the years, I still share concerns that were raised by other users. How will you overcome independent decision making in cases of systemic failures amidst likely being influenced by the other two dewiki candidates (of course, as always, under presumption of being elected)?--A09|(pogovor) 13:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the very question results from the assumption, that I must be rather close to Ghilt and Luke because we share the same home-wiki and have shared the same position in one body (at least for a year when it comes to Luke). Quite frankly, I don't see the point. While being in one body means to cooperate towards a collective result for sure, it doesn't mean to synchronize souls and minds.

During our time in the German ArbCom we all discuss(ed) a lot and sometimes we agree(d), sometimes we disagree(d) and I do not expect any change in this. It is my attitude to share my own thoughts and positions with the group as a hopefully valuable contribution, taking on the contributions of others and trying to develop everything further towards the mentioned collective result. There will be discussions, there will be agreements and disagreements, with Ghilt and Luke as much as with everyone else in the U4C and I am fine with this (of course, as always, under presumption of being elected

). Denis Barthel (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a valid concern and you answered it well. Thank you. A09|(pogovor) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IQR

You have made a little over 1k edits over the span of 8 years – this accounts to about 150 global edits per year. If elected how do you think you will increase activity levels? Additionally, how do you think you'll go about with the new tools since you have no permissions on any wiki? (excluding extendedconfirmed, which is automatically granted) //shb (t • c) 10:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I was contributing to wiki on and off. But, now, I am determined to spend more time on Wiki and increase my activity level. It all started with an inkling of interest in Wiki but now I realize the big vision and mission it has and I want to be a part of this mission/vision This way I want to do something more meaningful for the community too. I am a quick learner. I can get insights into how a particular tool works. I am confident I will not face any difficulty dealing with the new tools. IQR (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You stated your beliefs in the English Wikipedia. Given the very limited crosswiki and overall experience, how would your implication of the English Wikipedia prevalence impact your decisions on other cases, if any at all? Does this mean you would behave and give advice based on current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines or would you try to steer communities in a way that they implement policies and guidelines themselves?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that Wikipedia is a living, growing thing! There are rules set for identifying reliability and notability. I am more aware of the English wiki policies and guidelines. However, I know the importance of supporting the communities in framing rules that could make wiki much stronger. I would prefer to facilitate discussions, learn more about existing and proposed policies (if there are any) and promote community building and self governance (but of course, in accordance to the wiki's policies) IQR (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given your relatively low activity level with around 150 global edits per year over the past eight years, how do you plan to increase your engagement with various Wikimedia projects if elected? Additionally, considering your limited experience across different wikis, how will you ensure that your approach is effective and respectful of the diverse policies and practices unique to each community?VeritasVanguard☎ 06:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I started editing wiki out of an inkling of interest but I am more passionate about it since I realize how novel its vision/mission is. I can spend more time editing, increasing my engagement with various other Wikimedia projects. I am quick on uptake, I know that I can take on an effective approach, and be more respectful of the diverse practices and policies unique to all communities. You may think it would be a challenge for anyone with low edit count like me but I know that I can learn and grow beyond your expectation and prove myself to be a valuable asset to the Wiki community. It is an opportunity for me to to prove my worth and contribute to the community my way. IQR (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Iwuala

It appears that your statement has been written by AI entirely (as per gptzero.me). This needs a serious explanation from you; if you did, [removed; see comment below] it is very insulting to the community and also to the other candidates who put in the time to actually write their statement properly. It also begs the bigger question of why you thought it was appropriate, especially given you're running for a high-profile role. I'm quite disappointed in this (since gptzero.me very rarely gives a 100% hit for human-generated text), but I'll give you the chance to explain. //shb (t • c) 05:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SHB2000, your observations are well noted and I appreciate your keenness. I am someone that writes and as such uses modern writing tools like grammarly and other related tools for grammatical and brainstorming support. I draft my responses and engage these modern-writing tools to fine-tune my writings before submission, hence why you think all my responses are AI generated.

Also, information about me I provided in my response are all true - AI doesn't define my identity and the knowledge I gained in my activities which were key and vital to my responses. Every of these responses provided by me are all information about me which I use modern writing tools to refine before submission. However, if these responses seem more of AI-generated, I have no such in mind and has not exhibited any form of laziness in my Wikimedia engagement nor seem to insult the Wikimedia community.

I know the importance of the role I am applying for and always strive for accountability and transparency. Thank you once more for your observation. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, Lucy – I'll admit I was probably harsher than I needed to be in the question (and I do apologise for that), but that still begs one question: what percentage of your statement did you actually write using AI? //shb (t • c) 23:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SHB2000 I accept your apologies, and I understand that your question is from a place of concern.

To the question you begged for, I have responded to this question already in my previous answer but I will reiterate for clarity: my statement is written by myself and not generated by AI. Like I stated above, I make use of the contemporary modern writing tools to fine-tune my writings (and not just for U4C), which could have seemed or left traces of use of AI. Also, I believe that it is my active engagements and contributions in the Wikimedia community (which are verifiable) that are of most importance to such a role I'm vying for and as such, I see no reason to allow AI to tell or recount my stories/contributions in the Wikimedia community - I believe I can outsmart AI in telling my stories myself (online and offline).

I also understand your concern about the presence of AI when it comes to originality, and I am not out to undermine trust and transparency. I am deeply committed and keen on integrity in all sphere - not even vying for a seat in U4C will make me compromise.

Thank you once more for your concern. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to ask directly: can you confirm whether any part of your statement was generated or significantly aided by AI tools? As a voter, it's important for me to understand the authenticity of your submission and how you approach the integrity of your candidacy. Thank you for addressing this concern.VeritasVanguard ☎ 06:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VeritasVanguard as I have responded to similar question, my statement is written by myself and not generated by AI and whatever I cited in my responses are clearly verifiable. Like I stated above, I engage writing tools to fine-tune my writings - AI does not brainstorm for me. I hope I have answered your question to ensure you understand the authenticity of my submission and the integrity of my candidacy. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a question, so ElectCom members please feel free to remove, but your candidacy page is misplaced. Would this indicate anything or is a result of a mistake?--A09|(pogovor) 11:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A09, just few minutes ago I checked, my candidacy page is still up. Or is there anything I'm missing out? Lucy Iwuala (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucy Iwuala: Your username was switched the other way around. It was fixed in 28804708. Best regards, A09|(pogovor) 21:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A09: The candidate was recently renamed, after she submitted her candidacy. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that will explain it. Thanks @Sdrqaz and sorry Lucy for unwanted stress. A09|(pogovor) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the third time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 44% support result in 2024 and 49% in the 2024 special election. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno my being unsuccessful in the first and second election and my coming for the third cycle is a proof of consistency and doggedness of my inclination to not just learn from my failure but also to look back to growth and to the general electoral process. Just as my fellow candidate (Leaderboard) has responded to a similar question, U4C election of 2024 was one that recorded many qualified candidates clustered at same support level, making it a difficult choice and decision for the voters to choose from a pool of qualified candidates - I believe it is a general issue I and other candidates faced in 2024.

Also, as you quoted, my improvement from 44% in the initial election to 49% in the special election, notwithstanding the challenges mentioned above is a clear indication that my potential and commitment was also recognised by the voting community.

Moreover, within this space of time, my engagements and understanding of practical conflict resolution has greatly improved which I believe is another learning curve in preparation for my candidacy. So, its not about my failing twice, its about proven consistency towards growth and new learnings that made me believe in my candidacy for another U4C election. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a couple specific incidents where you have improved your conflict resolution skills? Izno (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the sensitive nature of some this incidents, it would be unlikely and unethical that I proceed to replay these incidents - more especially when it has all be rectified. But just like I stated, these experiences have greatly influenced and improved my conflict resolution skills which strikes a balance with accountability and reconciliation.

I am willing to answer to any discourse/question in my general approach and skills to conflict resolution - if that would be helpful. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucy, thanks for running for U4C membership and good luck! You have mentioned on your user profile that you have a passion for indigenous languages and revitalizing them. Would you consider Arabic variaties with little written tradition, such as Levantine or Mesopotamian Arabic, to be indigenous languages? If so, would you agree that there exists a major, unresolved conflict about having separate Wikipedia projects in these languages as opposed to using only a centralized variant of the macro language? Do you have ideas about how to resolve this conflict? Thanks in advance if you choose to answer this question. (Please feel free to answer in the language that you are most comfortable with, as Meta is a multi-lingual environment and the U4C has to be a language-agnostic committee per the UCoC.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker, thanks for your kind wish. Yes, I am very passionate about indigenous languages advocacy - be it in documentation, preservation, revitilisation, digitisation, representation, etc. Yes, I would consider consider Levantine or Mesopotamian Arabic as indigenous languages - language is not just about communication, it is also identity, about a people. For a language spoken by not just hundreds of speakers but millions of them as cited of the Levantine Arabic on the English Wikipedia, there is need to recognise the fact that there are humans who are native to these regions and with their different linguistic features and as such, if they want to be recognised in their unique linguistic variants - why not. The issue of unresolved conflict about having separate Wikipedia projects in these languages as opposed to using only a centralized variant of the macro language is a reflection of a representational tension of the diverse linguistic culture and practice of entities from these regions. Hence, my perspective to this is that there should be an unbiased community-driven solutions which will recognize the existence and independence of these entities especially if there is a clear evidence. That is to say: if the speakers and communities where these varieties are spoken want separate Wikipedias, they should have the right and necessary support needed to develop them, with shared resources (e.g., tools, training) so as to ensure coherence and systematicity. For the U4C’s, their role here is to ensure that there is equitable and not ONLY equal support in achieving this while respecting these communities' resilience. All languages deserve representation, and decisions should prioritise local voices, existence and not just guidelines. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J ansari

Given most of the current candidates in this U4C elections holds high-trust permissions or they possess functionary rights, do you think that you'd be seen as a less viable candidate? As your statement is largely based on what you had edited in the past, how would that contribute to the overall quality of the U4C?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is good, yes whatever I have mentioned in my candidancy are mostly my contribution from the past, but I have also did lot of work recently , if we talk about rights then I also have global rights, Global renamer and Rollbacer, I'm active both online and offline in Wikimedia movement. I'm passionate work for U4C as a india i speak more local languages and my native is hindi , hindi is one of the most speaking lang in india it will be helpful for me to engage in U4C issues and resolved that. Thankyou! -J. Ansari Talk 17:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the second time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 38% support result in the 2024 election. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King ChristLike

You were unfortunately unsuccessful in a Wikidata RfA within the last year. What have you learned since then? //shb (t • c) 11:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikidata RfA last year was jumping the gun as I clearly admitted. Since then, I have been committed to actively contributing to Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects. I have had to study a lot of policies and guidelines, provide guidance and learning materials for both new & existing editors, organize and manage events, follow and participate in discussions, observe and learn how admins handle issues. I have also gained the rollbacker rights and a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team, helping to revert vandalism and report spam. Amidst all these, my interest in U4C is inclusion, fairness, and upholding guidelines in all projects. King ChristLike (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This question is somewhat similar to one stated to IQR. U4C has faced allegations of attempts of them trying to become a global ArbCom. Per your candidacy statement it seems like Subsaharan wikiprojects are often underdeveloped in regards to policies and guidelines. How would you act in such cases so that it balances both upholding to UCoC and the fundamental right of a wikiproject independence?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For underdeveloped Sub-Saharan wikiprojects, context and culture matters. I would prioritize engagement, listen attentively, offer capacity building support to help develop local policies or guidelines that align with the UCoC, and also respects their independence. I believe the objective of the U4C is to support and empower communities, not to overrule or impose. King ChristLike (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderboard

You were unsuccessful not only in the last two U4C elections, but also in SE25 (where many of the concerns can easily be overcome). What do you think has changed since February? //shb (t • c) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the U4C, the problem in 2024 is that candidates as a whole struggled with an unusually low mean and standard deviation. This was particularly evident in the special election, where I noticed that many of other candidates who didn't get the role were also very qualified and capable on paper. As a result, it can be argued that this wasn't a "just me" case, and I got little to no meaningful feedback either. So, the fact that I failed both elections last year doesn't really mean much.

The SE2025 case was the first election where I did get meaningful feedback, and most of the concerns were either incorrect, or already fixed before the election (so it was mostly a case of "just wait"). I've also made some adjustments to handle concerns that I was supposedly too aggressive.

Other than that, not much has "changed" other than general refinement - which happens all the time. And I cannot tell what's going to happen this time either. Leaderboard (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairly solid answer – thanks for the response! //shb (t • c) 12:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. You state that "having seen how it's working right now", you think that technical expertise would benefit the U4C. Can you be more specific about what you've seen about the U4C's current operations (e.g. specific examples or concerns) that you believe you could improve, and what you would do (your answer to "what you hope to do" seems rather non-committal, just saying you will be "sufficiently active" and "perhaps" improve systems which your background would help with)? I also note that the committee does already have experienced technical editors, e.g. Luke081515, Dbeef. - Eviolite (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is deliberately non-committal. The reason is that I've only seen the outside, and technical improvements tend to require some knowledge of how the committee works internally, and I'm not sure if I should speculate as a result. I would be quite surprised if I cannot find areas to improve, however. And just because the committee has technically inclined editors does not preclude another such editor from joining (plus we don't know if one of them is going to be re-elected anyway). Leaderboard (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. As a member of the U4C in a governance role, you would have to be involved in disputes, mediation, etc. These tasks are not easy, as they especially require e.g. impartiality and defusing emotions. You stated above that you tend to "step back" from stressful situations rather than escalating, which is entirely valid (and which I can relate to), but as a U4C member it becomes your responsibility to deescalate said situations (not leave emotions to fester). What experience do you have with mediation and especially with situations that become personal (U4C naturally draws a high level of scrutiny and feedback)? I ask because after receiving criticism and concerns at e.g. your 2nd Meta RFA and SE (as mentioned above), your reaction has been to be defensive, arguing back and saying "concerns are incorrect"/"supposed", which I do not think is conducive to deescalation. - Eviolite (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Even as a U4C member, I think the principle still holds. Especially when dealing with other communities, if someone were to lash out to me, it's reasonable to just step back and let another member of U4C comment (and vice-versa). Just working together as a team, after all. Regarding your question about mediation, while nothing major, I've had a few over the years, mainly on Wikibooks (example from years back). It should be noted that most of the wikis I've participated in tend to have little in the way where my mediating would be useful, but that does not mean that I cannot handle situations requiring mediation. I've passively seen how complex cases work, by observing U4C and ArbCom cases, amongst others.

2. Regarding the premise regarding SE2025, I disagree about your claims about "arguing back". There are many different ways to handle a criticism that is incorrect. Some editors would not comment. Some would "go to the hilt" to defend themselves. I tried to strike a middle balance, and did not respond further after a certain point, following my principle of stepping back as stated before. Leaderboard (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke081515

You are running together with two other people that were or are members of dewiki ArbCom. While running for such post doesn't mean cutting friendships one has formed over the years, I still share concerns that were raised by other users. How will you overcome independent decision making in cases of systemic failures amidst likely being influenced by the other two dewiki candidates (of course, as always, under presumption of being elected)?--A09|(pogovor) 13:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think that will be a problem. For me it's important to make my own decision, so if I'm not sure if I'm under a COI, I would step back from a decision. Second, after some time in decision making bodies it happens that you know some people well. For example ghilt and I have been in the german arbcom and the U4C for several years toegether now. In simple cases, we often share the same point of view; but we also do that with most of the U4C members. When it comes to more complex cases, we often have different perspectives and discuss possible decisions and compromisses. That's nothing special for us, the whole committee works like that. However, if there would be from my point of view a clear systemic failure at some wiki, then I will vote for it, no matter what someone else will tell me. But if it would be for dewiki, the U4C should have enough members to handle it without me, so I would abstain to make sure there is no COI at all. Best regards, Luke 081515 21:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke, you had declined a case request by me, with the following statment: "I'm declining here for the same reasons Ghilt did, as tehre is an existing rule which was violated." Since you are not a community member of that particular project (ArWiki), could you explain how you came to the conclusion that a local guideline was violated? I believe this will help the community understand your approach in general with respect to the local guidelines. Thanks in advance if you choose to answer this question. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Qays

Since various arabic-speaking communities were parties of global RfCs in the past with no definite dispute resolution(s) do you believe U4C could address those allegations in a more efficient way? Given your experience with Arabic wikiprojects, how would you act upon these cases, if at all?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A09 I believe U4C could play a stronger role if given the right authority. With my experience in Arabic wikiprojects, I’d focus on understanding issues carefully and back using U4C tools to ensure fair, efficient application of global policies. Mohammed Qays (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About personal experience or awareness.Have you previously worked in contexts where you had to handle situations of harassment or exclusion? How do you think that experience could help you better support women editors and others affected within the Wikimedia community?Tiputini (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiputini No, I have not previously worked in environments where I was required to directly handle cases of harassment or exclusion. However, I am deeply aware of the sensitivity of these issues and the significant impact they can have on individuals and communities. I am committed to approaching such situations with empathy, upholding respect for personal boundaries, and taking appropriate action when needed—whether that means reporting concerns, providing emotional support, or actively promoting a culture of respect, inclusion, and equity within the Wikimedia community. Mohammed Qays (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your honest and thoughtful response. It’s encouraging to see your awareness of the importance of empathy and respect when addressing sensitive issues like harassment and exclusion. Your commitment to promoting a culture of inclusion and equity within the Wikimedia community is truly valued—we need more people with that mindset to help build safe and welcoming spaces for everyone.

----

Tiputini (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mohammed, apologies in advance if this will sound a bit harsh... But as an ArWiki admin, you had removed the line on my user profile where I had stated that I was learning Levantine Arabic language, which I considered some form of censorship. Would you consider what you did a mistake? Also you replaced my entire user profile with a red template that had a trash can on it, with no proper policy based justification. It is known that you have the opinion that Levantine Arabic is not a real language, if I understand correctly, but that does not mean that you can use your admin rights to remove statements from other's user profiles. Would you consider your actions compliant with the UCoC? (Your actions at that time seems to have surprised an experienced Wikipedian, not just me.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muhammad Qays, you are an administrator on Arabic Wikipedia, which is the first project in the number of complaints in last year. Can you point us to some of your achievements in stopping repeated violations of the Universal Code of Conduct on Arabic Wikipedia? --حبيشان^talk 21:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoplasmaKid

Given your candidacy statement allegorises being motivated due to recent eswikisphere drama, I have serious concerns about your impartiality. If elected, would you act on these cases? Additionally, would you also participate in cases you were indirectly involved in?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A09, my statement has nothing to do with what you mention. On the other hand, my impartiality is in the thousands of edits in the projects, not in a generalizing remark like yours. Of course, in the cases that may be personally related (which there are none in all these years of trajectory :)) the committee itself has certain simple mechanisms of recusal, as in many other committees of the movement. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might had been generalizing but it is a valid concern. A09|(pogovor) 21:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the third time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 54% support result in 2024 and 55% in the 2024 special election. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, thank you for summarizing these facts. On a very personal note, I would not want to be “attractive” or at least, it is not the profile I think should be met in this committee. I prefer to say no, that I have not changed anything in all this time because my behavior in the projects speaks for me. I prefer not to change my vocation to collaborate here and wherever I am required in an honest, fair and a strong free knowledge vision. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think it was appropriate to ignore Meta-Wiki practice as you did here? U4C members need to generally respect local practices; given how you went about with that comment, how do you think you will handle communication with communities that you're unfamiliar with going forward? //shb (t • c) 10:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to answer those messages because they are unfortunately part of a case that has been loaded with bad faith since its inception, led by users who have tried to sabotage the Spanish Wikipedia in an organized, deliberate and treacherous way, deceiving many of us, volunteers who come to collaborate in a disinterested way. Answering can be a good practice, but also refusing cases or situations that may affect our mental health should not only be a good practice but a perfectly recognized right. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. Why do you think ignoring practice is okay? Moreover, what makes you think that situation is different from any other ongoing U4C case? Simply claiming "I am not going to answer those messages" is poor for a U4C candidate. //shb (t • c) 05:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R1F4T

If elected you would try to uphold a safe and respectful environment across all Wikimedia projects. As longer and more complex cases often include abuse and misbehaviour stemming from cultural differences how would you act upon these (ie. in the current Commons case where Wikimedia Commons is a culturally heterogenous project)?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would approach culturally sensitive cases with justice, empathy, and a strong commitment to the safety of all contributors as wiki is mixed cultural organization. Listening attentively and patiently to all parties along with understanding the cultural context behind the conflict or debate. While cultural differences can lead to confusion, the harm caused by offensive behavior must be addressed appropriately. I might need to consult with local communities and, if necessary, relevant authorities to ensure that decisions are informed and respectful. I strongly support dialogue and education over formal Ban, unless the behavior is clearly harmful or repeated. My aim is to foster an environment where respect for diversity is upheld without allowing it to excuse misconduct. We must build a culture where contributors from all backgrounds feel safe, respected, and genuinely heard. R1F4T (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shushugah

You stated U4C is currently ill-equipped to respond to credible complaints. Since U4C is seen by many as an attempt of forming an elected global ArbCom, what actions or policies would you implement to both improve assets of U4C and still maintaining the foremost basic project's right to having an independent community?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious cases like legal threats, blatant harassment, functionary abuses of power are more straightforward to deal with, because it is clear(er) what remedies need to be taken. Sometimes there are physical/legal limitations to what the Foundation can do to support editors, e.g with persecution.

The grey areas and edge-cases come when there is some ambiguity are harder to deal with. The biggest constraints of U4C currently are the following

capacity
language/cultural expertise
outreach strategy across different communities

Expanding on capacity, if the U4C were to expand its scope as a global arbitration body, it would beg the question under what circumstances local community decisions could be appealed to U4C and by whom. Currently U4C accepts cases of systemic failures which is a much higher burden than merely disagreeing with a flawed but present local enforcement process. I believe this is the correct approach and would not change that.

This would mean the U4C does not impose on local community enforcement mechanisms, but could initiate a more proactive suggestive process to review/workshop local enforcement mechanisms according to suggested best practices. If elected unto the U4C, I would request some kind of survey mechanism from community members, and local functionaries what their assessments and understandings of the local issues are, and how well enforcement mechanisms work, building on previous consultations in 2020.

I believe the Universal Code of Conduct/Training is partially a step in this direction, but I do not see a roadmap for community consultations, nor ideas on content variety, for example videos or online educational games to make this process more engaging. Previous consultations focused on a select group of wikis and this work should continue.

Regarding further support from WMF, relying on volunteer translations is inadequate. The fact that the binding UCoC foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct is fully translated in 41-languages means that looking at Wikipedias language editions alone by community editor size (I mention these as they tend to be larger than other Wikis) there are at least 40 more language editions with 100+ monthly editors who do not even have a mere translation of the UCoC itself, let alone modules on best practices nor consultations. There are hundreds of other languages that are neglected, and it is precisely the smaller editions who may need U4C support the most. Shushugah (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer and if implemented, the last paragraph will act as a remedy among smaller wikiprojects which are linguistically very underrepresented and in some cases even endangered. A09|(pogovor) 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. On limitations and representation:You openly acknowledged your identity as a cis man from the Global North with limited language coverage. How would you compensate for this when representing cases or needs from diverse cultural and linguistic communities within the U4C?

2. On the role of U4C vs local enforcement: You’ve stated that U4C is not a global arbitration body and that some complaints may fall outside its scope. In those cases, what do you see as the committee’s responsibility: to escalate, to support, or to step back? How will you handle this balance?Tiputini (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 1.

Thank you @Tiputini for the two questions. I will answer what I personally will do, and what I believe U4C needs to collectively be prepared and responsive to the diverse community issues.

The UCoC is a binding standard, which clashes with national legislation and cultural norms in numerous regions where our Wikimedia movements are active. Short of taking a purist approach (Wikimedia would need to exit the USA then), we will have to grapple with these tensions.

The strategies to implement UCoC locally should be done by relevant stakeholders who know their contexts, threat-models and issues best. I have firm opinions on many things, but I approach all of my opinions with humbling experience that the larger Wikimedia movement has fundamentally challenged my perspective with new insights I never considered, due to differing norms (e.g prevalence of IP editing in Japanese Wikipedia, or digital security practices of editors in Mainland China and so on). We know what we know, and we don't know what we don't know, but need to know there is so much we don't know.

To take a recent relevant case by U4C, the Sysop abuse in Swahili Wikipedia

Local strategies and solidarity

As a cis-man and queer-editor from the global-north, my strategies for addressing homophobia or sexism in my Wikimedia/offline context would look different from someone living in Kenya or Tanzania. It is important to avoid paternalistic "Western" norms and to uplift/support those locally who working on these issues. This was also the case, when Wikimedia LGBT+ internally assessed the risks and concerns around hosting Wikimania 2025 in Kenya. I personally understand why some foreign LGBT+ editors will refrain from participating, but there is also the reality that locally based LGBT+ editors do not have the same luxury to simply leave, and are at much higher risk of persecution due to their identities, who may benefit from having this conference, along with all the other important reasons why having a conference in

Listen, listen, listen

Everything that I do know makes me humbly aware of how little I know. While I have experience, organizing with trade-unionists in Kenya (some of the regions where Swahili is spoken, and various homophobic legislation), I have no linguistic expertise and very limited knowledge of the socio-political situation. I would both educate myself/request existing documentation on previous decisions/designs (for example this 2020 Community report) and as U4C name suggests, coordinate the relevant stakeholders from WMF and the relevant User Groups.

Documentation

In short, everything that U4C members learn, likely would be valuable to document and share both internally and more widely (one of the movement strategies). This documentation would also be helpful for Global Stewards and other advanced-permission holders who are tasked with complex enforcement needs as well.

U4C Communication feedback

I cannot know what happened behind the scenes, and the priority of editor safety comes first, but I would hope that at least internally U4C compiles some internal reflections and challenges it overcame for new/returning U4C members, for example the challenge of communicating and investigating across language, when even Google translate is inadequate.

If I could give constructive and actionable feedback to current U4C team, with all due appreciation for the hard-work of the team (hopefully we work together soon) both visible and behind the scenes, more effort could be made in making U4C official communication more accessible. Whatever processes are made, best practices should be documented and iterated regularly. Some suggestions from my side

Shorter/simpler English sentences for aiding machine-translations
While the team lacks Swahili language proficiency, it could link to Swahili Wikipedia pages where they exist. Instead of linking to Wikidata item d:Q4656487 a link to Swahili page sw:Wikipedia:Msimamo wa kutopendelea upande could have been used.
Avoid slang/acronyms that are not explained, like U4C, Sysop and seek local terms when used.
A spreadsheet of where to conduct communication, for example according to 2020 Community report there are active Whatsapp groups which may reach more editors.

Answer 2.

The U4C should recuse itself in certain cases, but even so, I do believe absent a global safety strategy, U4C should offer its perspective, capacity permitting. Ideally there is a proactive and strong communication culture with the wider movement (an incredibly complex task in its own respect that would benefit from paid WMF communication specialists).

Building a communication channel and feedback loop locally is the main way that UCoC implementation will improve, and best practices/issues will be raised. Now that a UCoC has been implemented, the conversation can shift from wiki "lawyering" questions about whether to implement it or not, and move onto more interesting questions of how it can be best enforced or tweaked according to shared experiences during the annual reviews.

In the corporate world, codes of conducts are often worthless, but within the Wikimedia movement, we have a unique setup that is (mostly) participatory. If local enforcement is insufficient, this indicates structural issues that U4C could assist with developing strategies around, but ultimately it will only work if enough viable community members are identified to step up. I suspect, improving clarity and also prestige around having healthy local-governance may motivate volunteer-editors to step up for what's a thankless, and often times stressful job.

We need to distinguish between wikis without local enforcement mechanisms-where fallback is unto global advanced permission holders, e.g stewards and the other scenario, where a local, but flawed (hypothetically) local arbitration process exists. In the cases of flawed local arbitration processes, an appellate process could take some time, but it is lower priority to the other tasks of U4C, and a more strategic approach would be to develop regular communication, feedback from both advanced permission holders and community members on a regular basis. It would also be possible to conduct even meetings for a "council of councils" to exchange best practices. From the Wikimedia Foundation and Affiliates side, these topics are regularly raised at annual Wikimanias as sessions, especially the T&S, but I am not aware of such initiatives by volunteer arbitration councils themselves in a regional or global process.

This format/setup is quite familiar to me in my trade-union work, where solidarity and best practices are exchanged between larger and smaller entities alike, but in all cases, there's shared belief that the work starts locally, with support and strategies sometimes discussed on a higher level. Shushugah (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful reflections. I deeply appreciate your emphasis on the importance of local context, humility, and active listening when implementing the UCoC. The diversity of cultural norms and legal frameworks across Wikimedia communities means there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and uplifting local voices is essential to respectful and sustainable enforcement. I agree that building strong local communication channels and feedback loops is critical for improving UCoC implementation. This grassroots involvement helps move the conversation beyond “wiki lawyering” toward practical enforcement, iteration, and shared learning. Documenting challenges and best practices internally and externally will be invaluable, especially in regions facing language or access barriers.Your point about supporting and motivating local governance roles is vital — acknowledging the often thankless nature of these volunteer responsibilities can help encourage more community members to step up. The idea of creating “councils of councils” or peer-learning networks among arbitration bodies is inspiring and could strengthen the movement’s overall capacity and solidarity. Finally, your suggestion to improve communication through simpler language, culturally relevant links, and support from dedicated WMF communication specialists is practical and much needed to bridge gaps between policy and diverse communities. Thank you again for your dedication and perspective. It’s this kind of grounded, community-focused insight that strengthens our movement and helps us collectively advance the goals of safety, inclusivity, and local empowerment. Tiputini (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soni

You stated U4C is still new and untested despite numerous complex cases. Even if you do not have specifics in mind regarding development of the committee, could you perhaps share some ideas on further improvements or implementations of the committee?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the U4C is "untested", despite the cases it has handled yet. Things I propose may not necessarily be the best solutions, so let me highlight where I think U4C could do better.

In multiple closed and open cases, I saw significant periods of "This case is stalled on U4C members" effectively. There are still many open/closed as "inactive" RFCs that are basically U4C case requests - The community is not clear enough on the delineation between the two. As a whole, I think the community is also unaware of U4C, UCoC, and their purpose in the movement. The current members lacked quorum for significant stretches, though hopefully that's a solved problem now. And finally, I believe there's not enough "buy in", as significant sections of the community still expect UCoC itself to be ratified.

These are all problems I think U4C could work at, and all my preferred solutions involve greater communication. I suspect there's room for further coordination between U4C and other parts of the movement, and I think U4C as a whole could communicate better. Soni (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About prevention and education: Do you think more training or awareness is needed in the community regarding the Code of Conduct and the impact of harassment? How would you promote that as a coordinator of the committee?Tiputini (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, Tiputini. My answer for Q4 partially covers my feelings on this. But yes, I do think more training and awareness is needed if we want the community to really accept and utilize UCoC. As a "constitution" or as "Terms and Conditions" to follow, the UCoC is a reasonable document. But it currently fails drastically in terms of "Can people understand it". I faced this issue when I was helping curate resources as part of Trust and Safety for one of our off-wiki events. In terms of training and awareness of UCoC, the currently existing resources are all over the place and often too hard to understand for the average contributor. Similarly, the resources available for those in charge of enforcing the UCoC in their local communities and events are lacking - There's very little guidance on what recourse or resource one can turn to, to solve dicey circumstances.

For my situation, I ended up relying on community members with prior experience, but that is not universally applicable. Ultimately, there needs to be way more resources for UCoC to be widely understood and accepted by the movement at large. Soni (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the second time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 45% support result in the 2024 election. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. Apologies for the delayed responses, this has been a hectic weekend.

I think fundamentally, I am pretty much the same editor I was in 2024, although with more experience under my belt. I have been involved in more offwiki activities and my communities. I have been editing more frequently than I did. And I am involved in the same community building onwiki, just more than I was doing before.

My reasons for applying for 2024 and now are the same - To guarantee my community (South Asia primarily) gets heard. I do believe in self improvement, just not necessarily to "make myself more attractive to voters". After the 2024 elections, I did seek private feedback from trusted friends, some of who were in U4C or equivalent. From the feedback I got, I felt confident about my editing, and about applying again.

Soni (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soni, this is Soni. Is there anything else you'd like to highlight that you've not said elsewhere? Soni (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question, Soni. First, I want to apologise for taking a few extra days for my answers - I had an extremely hectic week, and only got sufficient free time to answer all questions today. Otherwise, I would just request community members to keep in mind lesser represented communities and regions. 4 of our regions (Central and East Europe, Latin America and Caribbean, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa) have never been represented in the U4C, which increases disparity. I would urge all voters to consider supporting at least one member from each region. Soni (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Bash007

1.On gender-based harassment in Wikimedia spaces: You’ve worked to amplify women’s voices in Northern Nigeria, where cultural limitations make this particularly challenging. How would you ensure that the UCoC protects women editors from gender-based harassment, especially in underrepresented communities like yours?

2. On dealing with backlash or resistance:Sometimes enforcing rules, especially around harassment or bias, leads to backlash. How would you respond if you face resistance from within the community while trying to uphold the UCoC?Tiputini (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Tiputini for the questions. From my experience, I think the best way to tackle gender-based harassment is to:

1a). Make sure that everyone is aware of Wikimedia's stand on gender or any form of harassment, and that's part of what we are doing here in Northern Nigeria - creating awareness and filling the knowledge gap on Gender Equality thereby changing the people's perceptions on Gender bias (that no gender is superior or inferior).

b) Another important point is to ensure that editors are aware that Wikimedia takes harassment seriously, both on Wiki and off Wiki. Therefore, any gender-based harassment will be given special priority (especially severe harassment cases), and decisive action will be taken swiftly when harassment is confirmed via due process.

c). Another important point is to emphasize the role of women in the growth and development of communities, organizations, etc. all over the world. Women have equal rights and responsibilities like everyone and should be treated with equal respect, collegiality, solidarity, and good faith.

2. When faced with resistance/backlash; there are many Wikimedia guidelines for handling disputes even before they happen, which are;

Transparency: be fair and transparent enough to avoid justice bias or giving more weight to one party over another (so that you may not cause discontent by the other).
Referral or escalation: if the case seems to be problematic, you may invite other UC4C members or other dispute resolution bodies like the Arbitrary Committee, Stewards, etc, and present the case fairly.

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Uncle Bash007 for taking the time to respond to my questions. I truly appreciate your thoughtful and detailed answers, as well as your commitment to addressing gender-based harassment within the Wikimedia movement. Tiputini (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram maingi

Thank you for your work on the Universal Code of Conduct. In your statement you have outlined your further fields of work if elected. Could you elaborate on details some more – how do you envision prevention of abuse? Furthermore, since most recent U4C cases involved administration abuse, do you think you're able to implement further policies given your lack of advanced permission?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main contribution so far has been in silos. As mentioned earlier, my main contribution in Wikipedia has been in spreading awareness of Wikipedia amongst common people, on how they can they contribute in the movement and bring improvements in the Wiki information.

As far as advanced permissions are required, I presume if I am selected for this Coordinating Committee role, these advanced permissions will be necessary and will be arranged for my i/d.

Vikram maingi (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that answers my question at all ... anyhow, voting period is over. A09|(pogovor) 13:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Tunsung

Your account is young and beside incubatorwiki you do not possess any advanced rights. As Subsaharan Africa is underrepresented in global Wikimedia Community, what could you contribute to the U4C with your limited experience?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a co-lead for the Dagaare Wikimedians Community an affiliate to the Dagbani Wikimedians User Group for a year now because of my valuable contributions. My valuable contributions also enables me to lead the Wali Wikimedians Community which is now in incubator. Zakaria Tunsung (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Боки

Dear Bojan, thank you for running for the CEE seat. In your candidacy statement you stated that if elected you would ensure representation of smaller wikiprojects like Serbian Wikipedia. Given Southern Slavic wikiprojects were parties of multiple RfCs in the past do you believe the U4C could more effectively solve these problems? Furthermore, if a case involving a CEE (esp. Southern-Slavic) wikiproject is accepted, will you be able to work impartially in those cases?--A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this important and very fair question.

Yes, I firmly believe the U4C has the potential to offer more effective and structured responses to the kinds of issues that have surfaced in past RfCs involving Southern Slavic and other CEE communities. What was often lacking in those situations was a globally consistent enforcement mechanism combined with regional understanding. The U4C’s mandate—to support fair, transparent, and proportionate enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct across all Wikimedia spaces—can help close that gap.

Unlike ad-hoc discussions or emotionally charged RfCs, the U4C provides a defined process, clearer accountability, and the ability to proactively engage with local communities before situations escalate. Its goal is not punishment, but restoration of trust, safety, and alignment with our shared values.

Regarding impartiality: absolutely, I am prepared to recuse myself or limit my direct role in cases where I might be perceived as biased due to proximity to the community. Upholding neutrality is essential to the credibility of the U4C and to my own personal integrity. While I proudly represent smaller and underrepresented communities like Serbian Wikipedia, I do not represent them in a partisan way—I represent the principle that all communities, regardless of size or region, must be treated fairly and held to the same standard.

Having contributed to Wikimedia for many years, I’ve learned to separate identity from responsibility. My role on the U4C would be to interpret the UCoC, not local politics or loyalties. If anything, my regional familiarity helps me contextualize problems, ask better questions, and foster dialogue across divides—skills that are crucial for resolving deeply rooted issues respectfully and fairly.

In short: I will always advocate for fairness, process, and community healing—whether the case involves CEE, Southern Slavic communities, or any other part of our global movement.

Боки ✉ 20:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sound answer. Thanks! A09|(pogovor) 21:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related to UCoC implementation: What concrete actions do you believe should be strengthened or implemented by the Universal Code of Conduct committee to ensure a safe environment for women and other vulnerable groups in the Wikimedia community? Tiputini (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiputini

The U4C must go beyond setting principles—it must ensure they’re enforced in a way that protects those most at risk. I believe the following actions are key:

Strengthen reporting pathways – Make them visible, accessible, and safe from retaliation, especially for women and marginalized groups who often hesitate to report.
Early detection of abuse patterns – Proactively monitor repeat offenders or coordinated harassment, rather than waiting for issues to escalate.
Mandatory training – Ensure admins and functionaries receive training on UCoC enforcement, including recognizing subtle or systemic harassment.
Safer events – Encourage proper enforcement of codes of conduct at in-person and online events, with trained responders available.
Zero tolerance for retaliation – Treat backlash against reporters as a serious, standalone offense.
Diverse representation – The U4C itself must listen to and amplify the voices of vulnerable communities.

As a candidate, I am committed to helping build a Wikimedia environment where no one has to sacrifice safety to contribute.

Боки ✉ 20:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Боки Thank you for clearly outlining these critical actions. I fully agree that moving beyond principles to effective enforcement is essential to truly protect those most at risk in our communities. Strengthening reporting pathways and ensuring they are safe and accessible—especially for women and marginalized groups—is foundational. Early detection of abuse and proactive monitoring can prevent harm before it escalates, and mandatory training for admins and functionaries is key to building that capacity. I also appreciate your emphasis on safer events and zero tolerance for retaliation—both crucial for fostering trust and safety in all Wikimedia spaces. Diverse representation within U4C is vital to ensure that the voices of vulnerable communities are not just heard but amplified and prioritized in decision-making. Your commitment as a candidate to creating a Wikimedia environment where safety is never a trade-off with contribution is inspiring and exactly the leadership we need. I look forward to seeing how you’ll help move these priorities forward. Tiputini (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the second time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 34% support result in the 2024 special election. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno I’m not running again with the same message. I’m running with more experience, a deeper understanding, and a stronger sense of where I can help. And I hope that comes through in this year’s candidacy. Боки ✉ 19:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used ChatGPT (or any other large-language models) to answer the questions above? For context, This answer seems very likely LLM generated and has a score of 100% on GPTZero. If you had difficulty writing in English and used ChatGPT as a translation tool, why did you not disclose this as part of the answer? -- Sohom (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this, @Sohom Datta.

To clarify—no, I did not use ChatGPT or any other AI tool to write my answers. The only assistance I used was Microsoft Word’s built-in grammar and spelling check, which I believe is quite common and helps me catch minor mistakes.

I’ve lived in Canada for over 20 years, and English is a language I’m fully fluent in. That said, having returned to Serbia about three years ago, I occasionally use tools like Word’s grammar checker just to stay sharp and avoid small lapses that can happen when you’re not using English every day in conversation.

I understand how LLM detection tools work, and I also know they can sometimes flag natural, well-structured writing as “AI-generated.” I take that as a compliment to the clarity and tone of my responses, but I assure you—every answer reflects my own views, written in my own words.

Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

Боки ✉ 19:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain en:w:Draft:Sleep app? At the AfC help desk, you similarly claimed that it was entirely written by hand, but the majority of the citations are completely bogus (which could be caused by an LLM hallucination.) In particular, every single paper except Citation 5 does not exist (links go to completely different papers with different authors, titles, and journal names; in fact 3 and 4 have the same link). So I ask more broadly - you imply in the above answer that you have not used AI tools at all for writing - only "occasionally using tools like Word's grammar checker". Is this implication accurate? If so, can you explain how you came up with those bogus references in the draft?

I also note that your writing style from before LLMs were widely adopted is completely different from what it is now, which is completely understandable (and not a problem at all) if you e.g. learned or wrote more in the meantime, is not consistent at all with your story of having developed your writing style through 20 years in Canada - can you help clear this up? Eviolite (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I have not used ChatGPT or any other AI tools to generate content for my U4C candidacy or for the Sleep app draft. The only tool I use is Microsoft Word’s grammar checker—nothing more. Since I’ve been back in Serbia after living in Canada for over 20 years, I use grammar check to make sure my English still sounds natural and clear. That’s it.

About the Sleep app draft—yes, that was written recently, and I take full responsibility for the mistakes in the citations. I added those manually, and clearly, I messed up by including incorrect or mismatched references. That wasn’t caused by an AI tool or any intention to mislead; it was simply my own human error while working on the draft. I should have double-checked every source, and I’ll correct that going forward.

As for my writing style: over the years, especially working in content writing, I’ve adapted to different tones depending on the audience. I naturally write more formally when addressing a wider or more global audience like here. It’s not about hiding anything—just adjusting to context.

I’m happy to clarify anything else, but I’d also like to keep the focus on the work we’re all trying to do here: improving trust, safety, and fairness across the Wikimedia movement.

Thanks again for your question.

Боки ✉ 13:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]