Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2026/Discussion

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

General discussion

[edit]
  • Electcom has recieved some requests for a space to discuss candidates on-wiki, so we have created this page for that purpose. Please keep it civil and constructive. Also, a general apology from electcom... we know that the way the election pages are set up is a bit of a mess, and hope to design a more streamlined process for next year (though it will be a different electcom next year...) – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am saddened by users who (ab)use LLM chatbots to generate answers in order to create some fake appearance of knowledge. While this is generally already unacceptable for any member of the Wikimedia community I am shocked to see some candidates think such actions benefit them, the reputation of the committee, and its mission. Such candidates are not getting my support, and I am sure am not the only one voting this way. --A09|(pogovor) 21:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now, Q1 hasn't been answered as well as I expected. Any reasonable interpretation is fine for this one, but many candidates simply listed characteristics of a good candidate, which isn't what the question is asking. And yes, I echo A09 in that LLM answers will be considerably penalised. Leaderboard (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to thank all candidates who answered my questions. There are some really great answers and some great diffs. I endorsed some candidates below because I thought I knew something about them that is not available on this page or on the questions page. However, certainly I will be voting yes for many more candidates than those I explicitly endorsed here. Generally, if I did not ask a question specifically to a candidate and made no comment or endorsement here on this page, my vote will most likely be the same as SHB2000 as specified in their guide for that candidate. I am excited to see that there are many great candidates who will bring significant experience, skills, and wisdom, and for whom everyone can comfortably vote yes. I'm very glad about that. As a community member, thanks to everyone who is helping with this election process. Small notes: a) Could we have the account eligibility tool updated? It seems to be configured for the last year's time cut-offs for the edit counts. b) Please don't forget the letter to the community from the U4C when voting. Best wishes, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Q4 I would like to add that misgendering is generally actionable on some wikis due to absence of language constraints but we must not wage cultural wars against projects where newer, neopronouns are linguistically not possible. Breakdown on the latter can cause significant chilling effects for both involved parties and this is something we shouldn't strive to do. --A09|(pogovor) 08:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q4 is not a straightforward question; it was written to target the stronger candidates in this election and was based on Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren/RegBlok/Archief54 - Wikipedia. Most candidates managed to get what I'd call a minimally acceptable answer, in that they all converged on a similar theme and briefly explained why they chose that theme (i.e, that it is a clear U4C violation). I think having people with contrarian and differing views is important in a role like U4C and was hoping to see evidence of that in the answers. Only a couple of candidates, such as EggRoll97, did that, showing for example why it does not necessarily have to be an obvious violation (also see A09's comment above). Leaderboard (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of specific candidates

[edit]

787IYO

[edit]
Questions

Avicenno

[edit]
Questions
  • Did not answer most of the questions. Of the ones that I can see, the answers feel LLM-enhanced, which are significantly penalised. So oppose. Leaderboard (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you for your interest and voting depending on user answers is actually objective and something to be respected because it is not arbitrary but evidence-based judgment. I didn't ignore answering the question but I just started answering now because I wanted to learn from my colleagues and study the questions before answering as this is my first global nomination and I am answering within the timeline (before 23rd of May). I think you confused me with other user because I didn't answer most of questions by time of your comment. Regularly I use my own words to answer and my use of LLM will be confined to languages that I am not native in them to understand the context. I respect your vote but hope that you can understand my perspective. Best Avicenno (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candidate answered questions late because they were studying others' responses. I really admire those volunteering to run for spots that include community-at-large, and the valuation of others' thoughts, but I want to see the candidate's own independently–thought-of solutions to questions, not just what people seem to be supporting, because a U4C member needs to answer without such an "audience meter" or keeping people waiting too long. I won't support this time, but I'd like to see some early answers from this candidate next time. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Artemev Nikolay

[edit]
Questions

Borschts

[edit]
Questions
  • Curtis is a lovely lad, a great global pick, and exactly the sort of person I want on the U4C. He has held multiple leadership positions and serves on Chinese ArbCom, bringing both a global perspective and key Zh, Yue, and En language competencies. I've had the pleasure to meet Curtis and see him collaborate with global colleagues (including U4C members), and believe he would be a great service to the U4C. Not only is he very easy to converse with, he is collegial, he is enthusiastic, he is full of fresh ideas, and most importantly, he has a deep understanding of the challenges our movement faces. He has my full support. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding Eek here. And I think the experience of having to start Chinese arbcom basically from scratch is experience that would be really useful on the U4C. -- asilvering (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping for a little more depth on Q1, but the answer otherwise is solid. Answer to Q4 is solid and one of the few candidates that attempted to look beyond just "it is a violation". Don't care about the previous failure. Solid statement. Clear support. Leaderboard (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EggRoll97

[edit]
Questions
  • Speaking as a member of the en-wiki community, I don't think Eggroll's failed en-wiki requests for adminship should be much of a factor in anyone's decision whether to support his U4C candidacy. He failed there for two main reasons: one, that he self-nominated, and two, that he hasn't done a lot of article-writing. Personally, I don't think either of those are particularly relevant for U4C. Meanwhile, he does have a high-trust position (edit-filter manager) and is an arbitration clerk on en-wiki. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to be clear, he holds adminship on meta. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this too, which is why I asked the question I did (mainly because I know there will be some people cynical). Their skillset and temperament is perfectly suited to the role of the U4C. //shb (t • c) 22:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not "much", but the inability to take the advice others gave after the first unsuccessful bid, and the choice to move forward without the two main things people were suggesting (getting a nominator and addressing the need for content work) count for something in my eyes. After all, we do expect the U4C to be able to read the room and make judgement calls, and I don't think their second run demonstrated good judgement/an ability to recognize community expectations. Not disqualifying, but it's something that I take into consideration. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with asilvering on all counts. EggRoll is a dedicated contributor who I know will be a huge asset to the U4C, and I look forward to supporting his candidacy :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also add that in my interactions with EggRoll, I have found them to be calm and very clueful, which I believe are qualities the committee can benefit from. They have also consistently shown willingness to volunteer, understand situations carefully, and approach matters while assuming good faith.--BRP ever 13:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Overall, I have very positive interactions and experience with this global user, concerning the various Wikimedia matters. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if I don't fully agree with their reasoning, answer to Q1 is good. Slightly unexpected interpretation to Q4 ("the community is not available in this case is troubling" was only meant to force candidates to give their view and not simply provide a "refer this to the community" answer), which is fine, and otherwise a good answer. Don't care about the en.wiki refusals; U4C is not a content creation role and not only do I find a second attempt just fine, they've done a good job explaining why they did what they did. Clear support overall. Leaderboard (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EPIC

[edit]
Questions

Ferien

[edit]
Questions
  • Ferien is a fellow colleague from simplewiki, and I am quite familiar with their work ethic and dedication towards the movement. They have also served as an NVM, so they are already familiar with much of the work we do and will likely be able to become an effective member from day one. I believe they will be net positive in this role.-BRP ever 13:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good answers to questions, and incumbent as a NVM. I will vote yes for Ferien. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good reasoning to Q1; I don't fully agree with their answer to Q4 but that's fine. Solid candidate otherwise and a support. Leaderboard (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fulani215

[edit]
Questions
Vermont's question has enough details to be an evidence filing at a case, and a U4C member needs to be able to evaluate them. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ghilt

[edit]
Questions
  • Since internal work is not publicly visible, I would like to add that Ghilt has been consistently active throughout the year, participating in almost all meetings and cases and regularly providing his input. This also includes work on training modules, one of which is already complete while two others are currently in progress. Beyond usual activity, they have been willing to engage in difficult discussions and work through complex situation which I find to be valuable for the committee.--BRP ever 13:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghilt can be considered a founding figure of the U4C, and, even only considering what is visible from the outside, they are one of its most active members. I may have some disagreements with them at times, but voting yes for Ghilt is the easiest decision in this election. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. But I am still wondering what that obscure statement he wrote in his presentation, means : “And i also expect some unexpected things to happen, as always ;)”. Despite your joking glance, can you, @Ghilt, be a bit more explicite ? Thanks in advance. -- @Éric38fr('tchatting, a good drink in hand), 16:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Salut Éric, we are slowly gaining an overview over developing long-term conflicts in several projects. Some have been brought to us, others have not (yet). We can only act upon request, so sometimes we are bound to wait. Generally, our focus in a case is to look at the local process, and where we can help communities to handle all sorts of conflicts themselves, because they know their members best. This can be accompanying the (re-)creation of an arbcom (as we are currently doing with itwiki, nlwiki and arwiki) or helping with the process of local appeals, depending on the size of a project. We can do conflict management as a service, e.g. if a community doesn't want to have an arbcom, but we really believe in the subsidiarity principle and want local communities to handle conflicts fairly and effectively. In summary, the proportion of unexpected cases is shrinking, but someone wise said: "It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future." Ghilt (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to Q1 was surprisingly disappointing - one of the many candidates to not make any reference to the 60% mark and simply repeated what a good candidate look like. Answer to Q4 was acceptable but again I was hoping for a better answer from a member of U4C. Other answers and the statement are fine which leads me to an overall support. Leaderboard (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Leaderboard, well, the 60% itself was a compromise during the making of the EG and Charter. If i recall correctly, there are arbcoms ranging from >50% to 75% and i am from a Wikipedia with a functional arbcom since 2007 that uses >50%. Therefore, i had proposed a lowering of the cut-off value during the Annual Review to give candidates from underrepresented regions a better chance (there are 2 empty regional seats that haven't been filled in 3 elections), but i clearly had a minority opinion, so the proposal was dropped. Now, what would you like to know about Q4? Ghilt (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Ghilt, it still seems like you are misunderstanding Q1. It isn't asking why the support percentage is set as 60%. The question is asking for your view on the type of candidates that will get around 60% in a U4C election. In other words, who's likely to get such a support percentage. For Q4, to be clear your answer did meet the minimum requirements, but I felt like "Then we will see. In case of repetition, other options will be discussed" was quite brief given that the question explicitly asked candidates to share their reasoning. Leaderboard (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Husseyn Issa

[edit]
Questions

JogiAsad

[edit]
Questions

Kadı

[edit]
Questions

I enjoy having Kadı as a fellow Wikimedian, but honestly I don't believe they are ready to serve as a voting member, yet. They would be a great non-voting member, for now; and switch to a voting member in the coming years. The subtle details in their answers prove my point. I.e. "The other cases are mostly about the checkusers. Claims of misuse of the CU tools are handled by the Ombuds Commission, if I were a member of U4C, I would be declining these cases." I believe this misses some important nuances. A claim may include probable misuse of CU tools, but a typical misuse of CU tools is also accompanied with other behavior that might constitute an UCoC violation that are outside of the Ombuds Commission's scope. There other similar nuances that Kadı's answers miss. Regardless, wishing best of luck to the candidate. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I recognise some of the concerns with Kadi's answer, I also don't expect every candidate to be perfect. As I've mentioned in my guide, this is something that can be learned on the go once Kadi is elected – they're not going to be thrown in the deep end on day 1, nor will they be making significant decisions on their own. //shb (t • c) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The latest response to Adem, again, is missing any mention of the U4C's responsibility (per the charter and the enforcement guidelines) if the local system is not capable of handling alleged UCoC violations properly and fairly, including the ones related to admin actions (e.g. allegations of abuses of power and/or conflicts of interests). Going back to Adem's question, "What do you think about this, do you think the U4C should functions as a general global appeals body for controversial domestic sanctions, or should it deal with UCoC violations??"; a domestic sanction can also constitute a UCoC violation, as we have seen in many cases. It is primarily the responsibility of the local project to address on-wiki UCoC violations. The U4C steps in when there is an insufficiency or failure within the local project in handling such issues. These kinds of situations could be more common, especially within smaller projects. There are many examples of actions from the past U4C cases that could have been considered to give a better and more complete answer to all these questions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olimasy

[edit]
Questions
  • Regardless of how they answer the questions, I'm not convinced Olimasy will be able to sustain a decent activity level. Their account was created in late 2016, so about 9.5 years ago. In those 9.5 years, they've made 3,878 edits globally, which averages down to about 408 edits per year, or 34 edits per month. While I am aware that edit count rarely paints the full picture, it is very clear that they have far too little activity and also far too little experience to run for such a high-level role. //shb (t • c) 11:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, they're the only candidate going for the SSA seat that didn't use AI to generate their candidacy AFAICT. They appear to be highly active in the Wikimedia Tanzania user group and the broader movement, so I'm not sure edit count is the best metric for measuring commitment, though their not answering week-old questions doesn't inspire confidence. If they don't receive 60% support then the SSA seat will likely remain empty Kowal2701 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No attempt to answer any of the questions, oppose. Leaderboard (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, but really late, and politician-esque responses... I also highlight "If I detected" when Swahili homophobia has been pretty big U4C news. I'll give moral support but I'm not sure how I'll vote. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pharouqenr

[edit]
Questions

If it wasn't implied already, overall, I'm really disappointed with this candidate's behaviour and attitude to responses. The dishonesty in using AI, getting caught red-handed, and then continuing to use it, even after being told not to. That's not even touching the potential sockpuppetry concerns surrounding Engineer014 (talk · contribs), whose sole purpose on Meta seems to be supporting Pharouqenr's grants. Overall, Pharouqenr's behaviour has demonstrated that they are unfit for any advanced permissions, let alone being a very high-level body such as the U4C. //shb (t • c) 00:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly apologize with my responses as it's somehow not good, but the account was opened not more than 2 weeks ago and it's my younger brother's account, i used to mentor him on how to contribute to Wikipedia. He supported me once in Hardware donation last week. Thank you Pharouqenr (Talk) 04:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So not only do you use AI but also canvass? Hardware donation programme is niche and does not see many voters there, so I'm wondering how a newcomer has found your request at all. A09|(pogovor) 18:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of community leaders used to share the application on either whatsapp or telegram groups for their members to apply, may be he found it or endorse deserved members. Pharouqenr (Talk) 09:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharouqenr: so you do admit to canvassing? //shb (t • c) 10:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, because canvassing lead to
1. Undermines fairness
2. Damages trust
3. Harm reputation
So as an experienced editor and also administrator i can't support or admit canvassing Pharouqenr (Talk) 10:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw the U4C application request on my talk page, when visiting the page i just found the comment from @SHB2000, with due respect @Pharouqenr and @Engineer014 are 2 different persons, because i know them in person as i belong to Hausa community too. Ibrahim abusufyan (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pick one – either Pharouqenr socked themselves, or they canvassed, both of which demonstrate a severe lack of understanding for Wikimedia practices. You can't deny allegations of both when the evidence is pretty apparent and obvious. //shb (t • c) 02:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the trusted administrators on Hausa Wikipedia I think this role is suited for him. Sardeeq (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardeeq: given the very obvious signs of mistrust I've stated above, I'm curious to know what you mean by "this role is suited for him"? //shb (t • c) 20:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I stated this because he handle situations fairly on Hausa Wikipedia. That all I know. Sardeeq (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Pharouqenr uses AI on his application, but I'm sure the informations stated belong to him and also i worked with him several time as he treated critical situations correctly on Hausa Wikipedia. With these reasons i think i will vote for him. Ibrahim abusufyan (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clear oppose for reasons others have explained above (and "I can't admit canvassing?"). Leaderboard (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found the initial concern to be so unpersuasive that it would've made me switch my vote to support in sympathy. AI-detection is unreliable and discriminatory towards neurodivergent and non-native writers, so I don't see an issue with 100% coexisting with "I wrote the first draft and told AI to revise solely for grammar". Time to do grammar revision is completely unrelated to time processing disputes and creating the initial draft is writing from scratch. (It was very vague and nonspecific, though, and I wonder if U4CC elections allow submitting candidacy in non-English languages. If not, they should.)

However the Wikivoyage hidden text and the Engineer014 shenanigans seal this oppose for me. This candidate is clearly lying about their use of AI to generate their texts' ideas. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ptjackyll

[edit]
Questions

I voted against. I will explain my decision below.

For some time now I've noticed certain behaviors in Piotr that concern me. First of all, he wrote an email on the Wikimedia Polska mailing list, where he called the Warsaw Open Wikimeeting in February a "behind-the-scenes conspiracy" and when User:Gdarin, the President of WMPL pointed this out and asked him to apologize to the participants, he reacted with intense anger, demonstratively leaving the WMPL Peer Court and the WMPL itself. This surprised many people and was commented on both on the mailing list and during Thursday's meeting with the WMPL Board, when confused outsiders inquired about what was happening. In his email, he mentioned one of the WMPL Board members, pl:User:Cyfrowabiblioteka in the context of the "conspiracy". He refused to apologize, he never explained, elaborated or backed down from his odd accusations.

Furthermore, a few days ago, he wrote an email on the WMPL mailing list in which he said he expected changes within WMPL, emphasizing the "plural." However, he didn't specify what kind of changes he expected, so it's difficult to address his demands. No one commented, and a strange air of understatement hung over the entire discussion. I feel confused and a bit worried. I sense strong negative emotions between him and WMPL. The plural indicates that the conflict may be about more than one issue.

Finally, at the last conference of Polish Wikimedians Wzlot 2026 in Łódź, he decided not to pose for a group photo. Then, on Discord, he wrote that he wanted to, but the people he didn't want to be in the photo with were posing for the photo, and that "he feel uncomfortable about it, but at least he won't have to be embarrassed in front of the mirror later" (this isn't an exact quote; I'm not quoting the entire statement because I don't know if copying Discord is allowed here).

If someone says they won't take a photo with someone because they couldn't look in the mirror, they're expressing not a lack of sympathy, not a disagreement, but a deep repulsion. It's a very strong emotion. I don't know if they're referring to me, someone else, or a group of people. But these people were in the photo at the conference, and I think they should know that. If anyone ever asks him as an arbitrator to resolve a dispute, they should know whether he feels repelled by them.

Another matter: his surprising behavior last fall, when during the voting process for the AC in Polish Wikipedia, he suddenly accused me of publishing confidential correspondence from him without his consent. He emphasized that "he was disappointed in me." His behavior caused considerable surprise among many people, because the correspondence was obviously not private. Among people who actively disagreed with his behavior, were: User:Julo (co-founder of WMPL), User:Ency, and User:Wostr (member of Polish CA). That was the first time I had the impression that he was behaving in a strange way, one I would describe as unstable and unpredictable. I will quote Wostr's opinion here, who agreed to make it public:

As I replied to ptjackyll's message on his discussion page, I believe you had every right to consider your correspondence with the Committee to be, in a sense, official correspondence, and at the same time, I believe ptjackyll is mistaken in his assessment of this correspondence as private.

As I explained, despite the lack of any regulations in this regard, the Committee – not one of its members as an individual, but the Committee as an institution – decided to respond to your request and, additionally, within the framework of established working relationships with T&S WMF, attempt to learn anything the Foundation might know about your case. This alone justifies the claim that the Committee acted officially as an institution, and therefore the response to your request was also the Committee's response, not the private response of an individual arbitrator. The lack of regulations in the Arbitration Policy and Internal Rules – as ptjackyll cites – is irrelevant here, because it was the Committee that decided to take certain steps and provide you with a response, so the Committee itself made this, let's say, an "official matter," further leveraging official working relationships with the WMF. Otherwise, the Committee would have to respond by saying that this was outside its scope of responsibility, and perhaps one of the arbitrators would privately declare that they would try to help you. In that case, it could be considered private correspondence. The second thing is, of course, that ptjackyll signed the emails to you as the Committee's chair – this provides additional evidence to support the claim that these were official emails from the Committee, not private correspondence. Moreover, when contacting T&S, we made sure which of the information provided to us could be made public, also bearing in mind that you may later want to use the information provided to you further - from this perspective, there is nothing in the email to you from ptjackylla that could be burdened with any clause of confidentiality.

Regarding the value of the response provided by the Committee, I believe it was the Committee's official response to your request, which you have the right to use for any further steps in your case.

Summary:

We recently witnessed Ptjackyll's argument with the President of WMPL, as well as his accusations of "conspiracies" against one of the WMPL Board members. We saw that he left WMPL in a state of strong emotion. He refused to apologize. He wrote that he wouldn't pose for a photo with us because he couldn't look in the mirror. He said he had a number of complaints about WMPL, without specifying what he actually wanted. He has made some strange decisions that surprised many and led to written votum separatum. Each time, there was a strong emotional charge and tension.

I'm affraid that, in a hypothetical situation where WMPL has a dispute with a Wikimedia Foundation employee or an entity, Ptjackyll may not be able to remain calm, impartial, and objective. Also, it seems like he has some unspoken grievance to some of Polish Wikimedians. I'm not sure whether all members of the Polish community can count on his fair judgment if he openly says he won't share a photo with some of us.

Strong emotions, unspoken grievances, and personal conflicts are not desirable traits in an arbitrator. Especially U4C member. Tomasz Bladyniec (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Qədir

[edit]
Questions
  • I intend to vote yes for Qədir. I understand some experienced voters are rightly concerned with paid editing activities. I think these valid concerns, however, I also think paid editing by itself is not a violation as long as it is properly disclosed and done appropriately, and I believe the candidate will be receptive to the given feedback. One thing I would like to add here is that, as far as I have observed, they are one of the AzWiki users who emphasize the importance of being more methodical and policy-based in Wikipedia discussions (e.g. in deletion discussions). In addition to AzWiki adminship, they have patroller rights on TrWiki, which is given only after some vetting by TrWiki admins. They have helped some less experienced TrWiki users, and informed them about neutral point of view. Given the guidance from the U4C about the need for electing more members with diverse backgrounds, I believe the global community should consider supporting their candidacy. Wishing them best of luck, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps to elaborate more on what I said in my guide. It's really hard to write a question exactly or capture the nuance of the specific kind of paid editing concerns that apply, mainly because the evidence in question is private – which goes in all three ways (hard for me to write a comment in my guide on, hard for A09 to write the question he did, and hard for Gadir to answer the question without knowing which piece of evidence the question was exactly referring to). But I will say, they've handled it quite well on the questions page (including the commitment to following the ToS and UCoC), and they are generally more qualified than most candidates here, which probably will make Gadir the only candidate this year I probably won't formally disclose my vote in my guide and something I'll let anyone reading my guide decide for themselves. //shb (t • c) 02:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read my comment here. Nemoralis (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemoralis: I moved your comment to this page, the question page is for questions, the discussion page is for comments. --Civvì (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly found out about this nomination on Discord and thought I should explain a few things here. Even though Qədir has sysop rights and a high edit count, there are major issues with his contributions, and these may not be visible outside of azwiki. He is extremely stubborn, and he is the administrator most frequently complained about, both online and offline. If there is even a small mistake in an article or something he dislikes, you get annoyed until you can explain to him (or until he understands) that he's wrong.
    His only activity on azwiki is maintenance and administrative tasks, which often leads to further complaints. He frequently acts arbitrarily and has been repeatedly criticized for this behavior. You can read these discussions on azwiki:
Considering all of this, I don't want to see this user represented in U4C and will vote against him. Nemoralis (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not as stubborn as claimed. I tend to be open to discussion, cautious, and polite, even when others do not treat me the same way. You can see that here. Whenever I take an action, I always provide a justification for it, and there is probably no user on azwiki who uses edit summaries more frequently than I do.
It has also been claimed that I am the most complained-about administrator and that my administrative actions cause problems. Nemoralis has said this several times, but whenever I ask who exactly is complaining, there is no answer (most likely they are referring to users whose articles I deleted). If I had actually misused or abused the administrator tools, there would have been discussions or complaints opened about my conduct, but no such discussion has ever been opened against me so far.
  • I discussed that matter with Sura, and I explained why I renamed the same article twice. In other words, I acknowledged that it was a mistake stemming from inexperience.
  • I received 66.7% support in the election, but the bureaucrat Turkmen first calculated it as 43%, and later as 55%. I explained this on my talk page. Neutral votes are not counted, and they never have been counted before. Afterwards, he even started a vote to explicitly state in the policy that neutral votes should not be counted; Bikar pointed out that there is also no rule explicitly stating that they should not be counted (despite the fact that they had never been counted in practice anyway). There was a similar issue in another case as well — for example, you can look at this: although the voting period was supposed to last 15 days, he made it 14 instead.
  • In this discussion, Turkmen stated that I should not contribute in areas where he contributes. The reason for this appears to be our disagreements. I also did not consider the interaction ban imposed by Nemoralis to be appropriate, because I have disagreements with him as well, as I mentioned here.
  • Here, I simply objected to something in the article, while Nemoralis reacted in a very harsh manner. In the same discussion, you can also see Turkmen talking about my right to participate in the discussion.
  • This is another discussion. For the earlier context, please see this. I am not saying that things on talk pages must be done my way; I am simply expressing the opinion that I believe is correct. The user who started the discussion is a problematic user. You can look at the warnings from both me and others on the talk page.
  • Please take a careful look at the oppose votes in the CheckUser election. Nemoralis is unable to properly respond to me, yet describes someone who actively participates in discussions as acting unilaterally. The reason I received 66.7% support was the incorrect WP:PAID-related situation explained there, which directly affected the discussion. You can also see that the other oppose votes were not objective and were motivated by bias or personal grievances.
  • The last one is my request from two years ago regarding other Azerbaijani-language projects. I also provided references in that discussion and requested permissions on those two projects (there is little to no administrator activity there, and I occasionally contribute to them as well). I mentioned that having the rights would allow me to do more work there, and I was motivated to help. The way I submitted the request was mistaken, due to inexperience. Afterwards, I researched the matter in detail and provided an explanation about it.
Thank you for your participation and your comment. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like zir responses the most out of all the candidates I see here. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SanBonne

[edit]
Questions
Impressive qualifications, good response to questions. The two that were not answered very directly aren't substantial concerns in my opinion. Response to BRP's question seems direct and in-depth to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't really say so regarding the answer to BRPever's question: it fundamentally missed the point that the arbcom in question wasn't community elected. //shb (t • c) 10:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an acceptable opinion. SanBo was asked about member selection (and handling of cases)—an emphasis I missed until looking over the question twice again today—and said she thought it was made of qualified members. To me it reads as saying the process confusion was the dominant problem. She mentioned the need to define the method of selecting members and I think it's reasonable for her to think non-election was just a detail among far bigger problems. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Missing these details can be understandable for someone outside of ArWiki, but this is a subject of hot debate within ArWiki. The temp arbcom unilaterally expanded its scope from a single case to almost all active disputes, and declared that questioning this decision would not be allowed. The current U4C expressed concerns about this, so someone closely following the active cases should say more. Regardless, I'd be supportive of SanBonne as a non-voting member, but unfortunately not as a voting member at this time. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise; I too have no issues with Sandra applying for NVM should they fail this year's election once the current U4C case is resolved. //shb (t • c) 13:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Superzerocool

[edit]
Questions


Toadspike

[edit]
Questions
I am thrilled that Toadspike is running—his native trilingual fluency, his skills in dispute resolution, and above all, his kindness and good nature will serve him well on the U4C. I cannot recommend him highly enough. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's also really important to have zh-speaking members in the committee, all the more so now that Dbeef won't be running for re-election. It's not easy to find qualified zh-speaking candidates outside mainland China; language skills by far will be Toadspike's biggest asset to the committee. //shb (t • c) 22:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By far? I don't know about that. Language skills are, of course, an asset. But Toadspike has many qualities that would be an asset to the U4C. Speaking as one of his sockpuppet investigations clerk trainers, I can tell you that he has good investigation senses and strong attention to detail. Speaking as one of his nominators for adminship, I can say that his kind, collaborative, and sympathetic nature had even editors he frequently disagrees with supporting his candidacy. (There were a few !votes that Sennecaster and I were bracing for. We needn't have worried.) Most importantly, he's someone determined to stand up for what he thinks is right or true, and isn't easily intimidated. (I can't recall the occasion, but I believe he originally ended up on my "people to nominate for adminship" list because he pointed out something I'd screwed up.) If the global community fails to elect him to U4C, it's en-wiki's gain; I'll drag him to arbcom instead. -- asilvering (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
re "By far? I don't know about that. Language skills are, of course, an asset" – you're right that it is an asset and it isn't a must, but they are far more relevant for global roles such as the U4C over individual wiki committees or permissions (and not lightly either). Those qualities you outlined are what I expect for almost all U4C members. Part of why the former homewiki rule existed was to prevent members from being from a particular region or subregion (and to an extent, that's why the regional seats still exist), and Toadspike's language abilities is what sets them apart from many of the existing members with similar traits. That's of course not to say their other skills aren't important, but with dbeef leaving, and the zh sphere forming a fairly significant part of the wikisphere, someone who can speak zh natively is a lot more important than you probably think. //shb (t • c) 02:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fully endorse Toadspike. I trust him with administrator permissions on English Wikipedia (I was one of his nominators), I trust him to have good cross-wiki relationships because he utilizes them, I trust him to have good discretion because of his good work at VRT. He's been thrown him all manners of areas with little instruction and done very well; copyright cleanup, arbitration enforcement, main page processes, recruiting and mentoring future administrators, you name it. He's, for what it is worth, also consistently polite, good natured, collaborative, good at disagreeing without angering people, and good at what the U4C is looking for in people. Sennecaster (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to see this. As someone who only really ran into Toadspike after his RfA, I have found him to be helpful, communicative, and highly competent in his administrative work. It can be difficult to distinguish U4C candidates with solely sysop experience, but Toadspike has consistently shown himself to operate to the highest standard. He has my full endorsement and I believe he would be a major asset to the U4C. Giraffer (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ToprakM

[edit]
Questions
  • I think the answers were quite good, overall (although I may have some disagreements with certain points). They were consistent with the methodical, conflict-averse, fair and open-to-feedback character of ToprakM. In addition, ToprakM is the only TrWiki admin among the home-TrWiki candidates in this election, and RfAs on TrWiki are not so easy to pass. I am overall supportive and I will vote yes for ToprakM. They have the right skills and qualifications for an U4C member, and they can help with coordinating better enforcement of UCoC within TrWiki and many similar mid-size wikis. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To add another good example from TrWiki: in this diff [1] ToprakM is very elegantly reminding an important point of the policy, that the admin panel for appeals needs to be composed of uninvoled admins. This point was unfortunately forgotten even by experienced admins until ToprakM's gentle reminder. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Torque

[edit]
Questions
  • Torque is an experienced it.wikipedian and sysop, having served as arbitrator for about two years. He is a respected colleague (recently awarded a "Coordination" award for his contributions in organising editing festivals); he has demonstrated judgement even in difficult situations and knowledge of UCoC. I believe he would be a valuable addition to the U4C; I am happy he is standing for the committee membership. —super nabla(🪰 msg) 22:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Bash007

[edit]
Questions
  • I think the canvassing issues from this user's NVM application are far too recent to ignore, and they completely missed answering my question until I explicitly told them about it. That, combined with the fact that they only answered the questions after the 18th (when the voting period was supposed to begin), has led me to a fine oppose. //shb (t • c) 23:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous failings, emphasis on NPP and CVUA, and "I will be better than last time because I have participated in discussions" make me unconvinced that this candidate is qualified to judge these cases. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح

[edit]
Questions
  • I am leaning toward voting yes for محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح. The answers were quite good overall, and I am glad they quoted this: "Also an expected behavior in such type of case is "Practice empathy: Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you."". As stated in my question to them, I appreciate that they had pointed out the policies when another admin had suppressed my changes on my own user page; and they did this even though they are personally against having Wikipedias in Arabic dialects (i.e. they personally disagreed with what I had written on my user page, but they reversed the unjustified suppression of those). This is something important for me. I understand some voters may be concerned that they are not sufficiently "conflict-averse", due to the present disputes. I think, considering some of the ongoing problems (e.g. unexplained content removal by some admins, potentially due to their personal views; unelected temporary ArbCom unilaterally expanding powers, etc... ), it may not be completely possible to be "conflict-averse" and try to improve the environment at the same time, on Arabic Wikipedia and other similar projects. But from their tone in the answers (i.e. "these kind of problems may happen on any wiki") we can infer that they appreciate the importance of being more conflict-averse as much as possible. As an admin for 20 years on ArWiki, I think the community sufficiently trusts them. Also it is important to have an Arabic speaker on the U4C, and محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح might be one of the most suited candidates running this election with this skill. Wishing them best of luck. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

기나ㅏㄴ

[edit]
Questions
  • I'm very familiar with ginaan's x-wiki work, and I think they'd be a great fit for the committee. The answer to A09's question is really great and demonstrates a solid understanding of the UCoC. I trust that they'd be a great addition to the team; good luck with the election! //shb (t • c) 21:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2026/Discussion&oldid=30614981"