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

Give a description of a candidate that, in your opinion, should or would in a U4C election,

barely crosses the 60% threshold
barely misses the 60% threshold

justifying your reasoning and stating any assumptions you make. Leaderboard (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer rather humbly, because I'd rather not judge other candidates here. I have experience from other high-stakes elections (SE), but the main reasons some people go barely under the minimum treshold there (low cross-wiki experience etc.) are mostly not relevant here. However, for U4C specifically, I feel like a large factor in determining whether a candidate has a "good shot" is twofold - the statement and the answers to questions. From my experience, these two are what voters mostly look at, and as such it's generally one of these two that sink a candidate. For the "borderline" candidacies, my impression of what leads to them barely failing - or barely passing - is that their experience and matrix is heavy, but their answers to questions and/or statement falls short. If I remember correctly, we've also had users failing because they're running from a home wiki which already has two of their community members on the U4C, and would be overrepresented with a third - which can be a bit unfortunate but also understandable. EPIC (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think communication, experience, the candidate statement, and answers to questions matter the most here. While global contributions may also have an impact, I believe a candidate's familiarity with policies and processes, as well as their behavior and general conduct, are especially important. In my opinion, users who are not prone to conflict, act in good faith, and are able to find common ground tend to inspire more trust. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that description still doesn’t really map to me directly as a person or “label” me as either passing or failing.
It more like describing a general type of candidate you see in U4C elections, not a specific individual. So I wouldn’t take it as something saying “this is you” or anything close to that.
If I look at it in a personal way, the main point I take is that U4C isn’t just about being active or having edits, it’s more about trust, judgement, and how people feel you will act in difficult or sensitive situations. That part is what usually decides support or oppose.
But saying it fits me specifically? I don’t think it’s accurate to say that from just that description alone. It’s too general, and elections are usually more complex than that anyway.*A candidate who barely crosses the 60% mark in a U4C election is usually someone the community mostly trusts, but not without a bit of hesitation here and there. Pharouqenr (Talk) 14:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the voting system. Since it is a Securepoll election where voters can't see preliminary results and change their vote accordingly or react to preliminary results, both options are in the same margin of error of typical qualification metrics. E.g. 59% is almost as good as 61%, with no statistically significant difference, because the values may switch if voted on another day. Therefore, the first candidate is almost as suitable to voters as the second with no big difference, but there technically needs to be a cut-off. This is very different in typical wiki elections, where voters can react to the openly visible preliminary results.
But to get back to the question about a suitable candidate's qualifications: a certain amount of community trust. Now voters are very heterogenous. My personal preferences for a U4C member would be: experiences with conflict management/resolution and teamwork. And, coming from a wiki where an arbcom member only needs >50% support, i personally would not expect too many qualifications from a candidate, because the group brings a lot of different qualifications to the table and everyone learns from everone else. The U4C colleagues also love to help, in my experience. --Ghilt (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The candidates' answers to questions and the candidate statement are significant and increases/decreases the support votes. The candidate's judgement skills, and intentions are very decisive. Every contributor is important but showing your competency and accuracy to the community has an impact on the candidate's votes. Regards.--Kadı Message 16:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that a large degree of what leads to getting over the 60% mark is the answers to the questions primarily. A candidate who answers questions from the community in a satisfactory manner to said community members is, in my impression, going to receive more favorable results, because the questions afford the community the ability to see the candidate's judgement on full display, for better or for worse. This leads somewhat into the reasons a candidate could miss that 60% threshold. The first would obviously be poor answers to the community, to which they should be accountable. Another would also be, as EPIC has already mentioned above, the home-wiki of the candidate, as some voters prefer to not have a U4C composition relying too heavily on a singular or a few home-wikis. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several factors come to play when voters decide on a candidate: past activity, years and depth of experience in general and with respect to other candidates, I think a candidate who barely crosses the 60% threshold is someone who might have given unsatisfactory answers during the elections, and/or had past problematic behavior that led part of the voters to vote against, or the candidate wasn't able to convince voters that these past problematic decisions or behavior have been overcome, that he or she changed his/her attitude for the better. Same thing for the candidate who misses the threshold, here just a bit larger group of voters voted against.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think my opinion on a candidate who should barely cross/miss the threshold is different to who would in reality. I personally as a voter treat the answers to the questions as more important than other factors like committee or functionary experience because they have the opportunity to shine through and actually show how they would act on the committee to everyone else. So on that, I think a candidate who just misses the 60% threshold should be one who has the given related experience but answers to the questions are lacklustre, and a candidate that just crosses is one that has less administrative experience than is ideal (plenty of admin experience and less committee experience) but reasonable answers. In reality, as we saw in 2025 as EPIC already mentioned, we had a good candidate who was, at least publicly, somewhat punished for his dewiki ArbCom background (as we already have two former dewiki ArbCom members on the committee) and missed getting in by two support votes, and he wouldn't be the type of candidate that I would put on this boundary level particularly given the number of members we have at the minute. --Ferien (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, My answer would be neither should be judged on the percentage alone. A candidacy should be taken based on the quality of candidates answers, their interactions with the community, their local administrative experience, and their cross-wiki contributions and conduct. Running U4C candidacy needs to have a person who is open-minded, responsible, respectable, safe, and efficient. Some candidates who barely miss the 60% threshold, or even score much lower, may still possess the qualities needed for the role. There are many reasons not to achieve the percentage.

In short, the threshold does not always capture the full picture of a candidate’s potential or their value to the movement.

Otherwise, if you are looking for straight answer for the question, in the perfect situation, the user contributions on wikiprojects, answers and attitude he is doing would reflect on the percentage of elections; thus, I would go for who had higher voting, and that is what U4C elections are now (60% or more).

On the other hand, more practically, several issues affect candidacy, like not being able to reflect clearly on the answers, which could lead to barely missing the threshold; thus, giving this opportunity to the user could lead to having a really good user in position.--SanBonne (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many candidates have already given great answers on this, so I don't really have much new to add. In my view, a candidate who barely crosses the 60% threshold typically has solid relevant experience and mostly good answers to questions, but leaves some voters with slight reservations. A candidate who barely misses the threshold is often very similar in background, yet their responses possibly come across as slightly less convincing to just enough voters. I assume that in such close cases the quality and nuance of the answer usually make the difference as they best demonstrate judgment and trustworthiness.--Borschts^Talk 23:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the question. These kinds of doubts are challenging because we are not talking only about a username; we're discussing the effort, time, and willingness to be a volunteer in a committee. Being a volunteer member in any committee represents a tough challenge, both in terms of online participation and in the real world. If a person barely makes it in the election, they might face a challenge of perceived legitimacy. While the person is elected, the narrow approval suggests that their election is not universal. In this case, the member should put additional effort into transparency and community engagement, because sometimes case resolutions impact specific communities, and some of them seem to be too silent to support or give feedback to the U4C. On the other hand, if a person loses the election by 1%, it is a discouraging moment for the volunteer. The person puts in the effort and time, so they see not being elected as an immediate failure. But this failure is not only for the candidate; the community also needs to reflect on why that person missed the seat. What do we need to ask regarding the capacity or conditions to be met when choosing someone for this committee?. To complement this, I believe we must also consider whether the current voting system truly reflects the diversity needed within the U4C. At times, the raw 60% threshold fails to show if we are losing a mediation expert or a representative from a key region—factors that are just as vital as the percentage itself. Superzerocool (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC) (ps: I used AI to correct grammar)[reply]
IMO the difference between 59.5% and 60.5% is actually very small in practice. I don't think it's possible to definitively determine why someone passed or failed because of just 1%p. A failed candidate may have had less experience than the successful candidate. Or, may simply have failed to present their qualifications effectively. They may also have had conflicts with several users, or perhaps some users who were unfamiliar with the candidate simply didn't like the candidate's username.
Nevertheless setting a 60% threshold is the fairest method because it applies equally to everyone. A candidate may be lucky or unlucky, but in the end, they still need to continue proving their suitability for the role. 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 15:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest judging other participants is a little bit uncomfortable for me, because the idea of this vote is not to get more points, but to choose the best candidates. In my opinion, the decisive factors are the candidate's experience and his statement along with the answers to the questions. Since the expectations of voters vary greatly, it is difficult to clearly assess what a given group expects. For me personally, the most important thing is the candidate's experience and a factor that I don't think anyone mentioned: red flags on websites such as User:Giraffer/U4C2026 or User:SHB2000/U4C guide 2026. Barely crossing the 60% mark may indicate some issues, though not necessarily disqualifying. However, I personally wouldn't consider failing to reach the 60% mark a failure, but rather a victory for the better candidate. ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many factors can influence voters’ opinions to different degrees. I will leave aside objective elements, such as previous experience and any past problematic behavior, which surely carry more weight. A candidate, especially if they are not already well-known, has limited space to present themselves clearly and honestly, and to answer questions.
In my opinion, these two things are important not only to show the candidate’s familiarity with conflict resolution and policy management, but also because they help understand their judgment and personal attitude. For this kind of role, I would expect a candidate capable of projecting a calm, thoughtful, and detail-oriented approach, aimed cooling down tense situations rather than imposing their own personality. The work should be collaborative and well-coordinated, so that it can be effective and carried out within reasonable timeframes. I think a candidate may cross the 60% threshold if they have sufficient experience and generally good answers, but still leave some doubts among part of the voters. A candidate who barely misses the threshold may have a similar profile, but fail to clearly convey balance, reliability, or ability to work in delicate situations.
The difference can therefore be minimal: not only a matter of experience, but also of what the candidate manages to convey. I also think that more external factors can play a role, such as the size of one’s home wiki or the risk of overrepresentation of the same community. --Torque (scrivimi!) 22:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that U4C elections are heavily trust based. Although competence and policy knowledge matter, voters would also look for neutrality, and the ability to work respectfully. Because of that, even capable candidates may end up near the threshold if the broader qualities are not met from the community point of view. There can be many reasons why voters may not support otherwise qualified candidates, including simply not being familiar with them. I do not believe in a case where a difference of one or two votes reflects a tangible difference. --ToprakM ^✉ 16:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to who should pass and who would pass are unfortunately different. The community has thus far been very cautious in choosing U4C members. As a result, the U4C has struggled to maintain quorum, let alone a consistent and sustainable level of activity. In my view, candidates need to be experienced with dispute resolution; familiar with the expectations for use of administrative and functionary tools; and able to engage respectfully with communities and cultures they are unfamiliar with. Recent sanctions for misconduct are disqualifying. Candidates with additional experience, such as serving on an Arbitration Committee, may do better. Three candidates in past elections barely missed the threshold. I don't think voters need my analysis of each unique situation, but I do not have any reason to believe those three editors were not fit for serving on the U4C. Toadspike [Talk] 07:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate who barely crosses the 60% threshold would likely be someone who is generally trusted, communicates respectfully, and shows the ability to remain neutral in difficult situations, even if they have some weaknesses such as limited cross-wiki experience or controversial past decisions. The community may have reservations, but still see them as capable of acting fairly and responsibly within the U4C.

A candidate who barely misses the 60% threshold would probably be someone with useful experience and strong activity, but whose behavior raises concerns about neutrality, communication style, or consistency in applying rules. In such cases, the community may doubt whether the person can effectively build trust across different communities.

My assumption is that trust, impartiality, and ability to work with diverse communities are the main factors voters consider in U4C elections / Artemev Nikolay (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate who has good reputation and deep experience. Apart from just communication and interractions skills, a candidate should have knowledge of how to navigate Wikipedia, conduct on-wiki investigation and has a profound knowledge of Wikimedia Guidelines. Hardwork and consistency is also a key to getting over 60% because without them, a candidate may not be able to commit 100% in handling cases, investigating complains and drafting the UCoC best practices etc. therefore editing skills and understanding of the U4C scope are very crucial. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate who barely crosses the 60% threshold, in my opinion, would be someone with strong experience in Wikimedia governance and community work, but who may also have some concerns raised about communication style, availability, or past decisions. For example, the candidate may have experience as a user with extended rights, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the Universal Code of Conduct and conflict resolution processes. They may also show willingness to collaborate across communities and learn from feedback. However, some voters might hesitate due to limited global experience, controversial decisions in the past, or concerns about neutrality. Despite these concerns, the candidate would still gain enough trust from the community because of their overall commitment, transparency, and constructive contributions. A candidate who barely misses the 60% threshold could be someone who is passionate and active in the movement, but whose experience or preparedness for the role appears limited to many voters. For example, the candidate may have good intentions and local community involvement, but lack demonstrated experience in handling sensitive conflicts, governance processes, or cross-community collaboration. In some cases, concerns about communication, impartiality, or understanding of the UCoC could make voters uncertain about their readiness for the responsibilities of the U4C. Even if the candidate has potential and community support, the level of confidence required for such a sensitive global role may not yet be strong enough to reach the threshold.Olimasy (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 1% difference between 59% and 61% is just few votes, but it reflects unique voter patterns.

Candidates who barely pass (60%+): Are usually strong local admins or ArbCom members. Voters trust their competence but hesitate over structural issues, like home-wiki overrepresentation or a lack of global experience. But their solid local track record pushes them through. Candidates who barely miss the threshold: Are often active global contributors who fail to convince cautious voters that they can handle sensitive conflict resolution or complex investigations. In close races, user election guides and "red flag" lists carry huge weight and sometimes are judgmental very early in the election timline making a single weak answer in the Q&A easily swing those final decisive votes even before some candidates write their final answers within the deadline giving impression that rush answers may give better results.

threshold is a necessary tool in this race but when subtle difference is there it could deprive the committee from an able mediator or an essential community voice. Best--Avicenno (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Q2

This question is about the following item listed in the UCoC under "Expected behavior": "Looking out for fellow contributors: Lend them a hand when they need support, and speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct." How do you approach this principle when doing so may put you at odds with people in positions of power, such as administrators? Do you have any examples (share the diffs please, if possible; examples that show some power difference, e. g. before you became an admin or from a project where you are not an admin would be preferred) of situations where you followed this principle even under such circumstances? Also, do you have any general thoughts about the risks that this may put our community members in, if they choose to follow this principle? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Users should be respectful of local communities, especially communities they do not know or are not part of. As a steward, since we are not arbitrators or mediators, I am generally quite conflict-averse and tend to refrain from interfering in communities where my input may be negatively received. From my experiences in that role, we have occasionally been dragged into issues where global community members have gotten into conflicts with a local community. In such cases, our principle is to do the minimum necessary, redirect the issue to the relevant bodies, and being especially careful with making comments or taking actions. Many of these times, the same applies to the U4C. While one will regularly deal with complex cases as a U4C member, the U4C is a coordination committee and not a medcom. If one is unsure about something, one should discuss it with others (and possibly leave it to someone more suited to handle it), which is especially important for this committee, given that a lot of the work consists of off-wiki discussion and coordination. That is one of the reasons why the U4C needs more than the minimum, given that some members may have personal involvement or may lack other important factors (such as language/community knowledge). EPIC (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are still members of the community, and so should be approached with the same respect and good faith given to any member of a community. Certainly there are those who are either more or less reasonable than others, but I do not see that as necessarily being reflected solely by the holding of advanced permissions. While I acknowledge the idea of social capital, and in some cases it does play a part in decisions, it should not, and the continual pursuit of someone who hopes to improve the wiki should be to minimize the amount that social capital plays a role. I don't disagree, though, with the general idea that it can be daunting for some to speak up to behavior that falls short of the expectation the UCoC esablishes, because many are conflict-adverse, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, administrators are contributors whose main task is to keep the project clean. Beyond the few technical tools they have access to, they are not hierarchically superior or more powerful than any other user. Being an admin is not what matters most; what truly counts is acting with common sense, justice, and neutrality. Every community member is protected by project policies, and no one should be looked down upon by administrators. In this journey, which I find very meaningful, we are a small group of volunteers, and we must ensure that no one feels pushed away from the platform. Therefore, our policies must always come first.--Kadı Message 22:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

During my admin role on Arabic Wikipedia, I have dealt with several situations that relate to this principle. The first action is reaching an appropriate page for discussion (village pump, users’ page, discussion of the article, etc.) to understand the situation and ensure transparency and allow all parties to be heard and help to approach the point of view, whether they are admins or newcomers who have a conflict. If they are admins or newcomers, I believe they have the same standards that should be applied. I prefer not to share any links for the bad attitudes of the users because I believe that won’t support my answer and could revive old conflicts or affect other users badly. Mentioning that, this behavior should be done with neutrality and respect for the policies.

There are real risks that could be faced when doing this role, such as reporting against me to different charters from the local community to the international one, and it could even sometimes affect your life outside the Wikimediaverse.

In short, this principle should be handled with neutrality, fairness, courage, and responsibility to the rights we handle. SanBonne (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that every user is equal and that their rights should be protected. Any user should be able to raise concerns to the U4C, and naturally, if there is a genuine issue, it should be reviewed carefully and a decision should be made accordingly. Outside of serious cases, however, I do not think local wikis should be interfered with too easily. In my view, such matters should first be communicated to the relevant project and the involved administrator(s), and the necessary steps should primarily be taken by the local community or the parties involved.

I just want to point out that, before I became an admin, there was a page where admins made important decisions among themselves. (This page had existed for many years.) However, since some of those decisions affected the whole community, I opposed this practice. Even after becoming an admin, I held the same view and opened a discussion to abolish that page, which was eventually done. Later, I created a new page where the entire community could participate in decision-making, and it was accepted. My objection was based on the idea that admins are not more important than other users. I was also concerned that they could, like anyone else, make biased decisions and that there was a risk of decisions being influenced by informal grouping. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when asked personally about a conflict, i give advice via Wikimail. This permits to ask for problems that i may have overlooked. The private setting of the conversation has some advantages: a more open communication and no interference. But when giving advice privately, please keep in mind that email content can be published at some point. In my time before i became an arb in 2014 (i became arb first, then admin in 2019), i often did not have enough experience to feel safe giving advice without making a fool out of myself. Gradually, by communicating with others, reading discussions, and reading the rule pages over and over i learned the possibilites and limitations, and ways to change things without causing much conflict. --Ghilt (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For me, “looking out for fellow contributors” means trying to help users to improve when they make mistake, especially new editors, while also making sure vandalism or disruptive edit are handled properly.

When I deal with vandalism cases, I normally start with warnings and explanations first, so the user can understand what was wrong and how to edit correctly. If the behavior continues after warning, then I may escalate it based on local policies.

Some examples of warnings I gave are here and here

In those situations, my aim was not just to warn them, but also to guide them so they can contribute better and to also understand the project rules.

I also reviewed a cases where a user later improved and I removed the block after seeing changes in the behavior: see it here

I believe enforcement should not only be about punishment, but also giving all people opportunity to improve if they are willing to follow all the rules.

In situations involving more experienced users or disagreements, I always try to stay calm and focuses more on policy and evidence instead of personal arguments.

I think there can be risks sometimes, like misunderstandings or disagreements from other users, but I still believe it is important to apply policies fairly and consistently for everybody. Pharouqenr (Talk) 06:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After I became director of our regional user group I was responsible for enforcing the Friendly Space Policy and UCoC at all offline meetings and events. During this journey, some participants had been around much longer than me, had way higher social capital or had even held very senior positions including former Board members and Trustees. Even then, whenever I received reports of harassment or inappropriate behaviour I still stepped in. I believe that once you accept the responsibility you also accept the duty to protect fellow contributors even if it means upsetting some very popular or influential people. To me, it is important to focus on the issue not the person.

In one zhwiki ArbCom case we had, an editor reported problematic behaviour by a user who had a lot of support. While handling that case I insisted that all evidence be anonymized and the whole matter be discussed and reviewed privately, if we have to disclose something it must be deidentified to protect the reporter from backlash. Even if that person can easily influence other editors to vote me out in the next ArbCom election, I still do what I have to do. In the end I keep my seat because I did what I should have done.

I know there are real risks for anyone who follows this principle. People who get sanctioned can retaliate because they feel they have nothing left to lose. But I think that’s why those of us who have extra responsibilities and permissions should use them to help protect more vulnerable members. -Borschts^Talk 09:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this principle is part of the nature of Wikipedia: collaboration. Sometimes we have biases in our way of seeing the world, and people are not always impartial, so having more voices in the discussion helps us to be clearer and more focused on a possible case resolution. The possibility of helping others to create a more friendly and easy-going Wikimedia space is the goal for this project. Because Wikipedia and its sister projects are made by humans, we will speak, discuss, and disagree more frequently than we might think. Therefore, being a team or committee member is not only about reading cases and being a judge; it is about being part of the community, reading, and trying to understand others before seeking the 'best solution possible' for the parties involved. Sometimes we need more empowered voices to speak up for others. While this kind of behavior might seem rude in some online spaces, in our project, we should see it as a fundamental part of building human knowledge. My guiding principle is to hear or read everyone before making a statement. Following the rules —informed by my past experience as a public official in real life— and being clear about decisions and their implications is the best way to de-escalate conflicts. I don't know everything, so I always strive to reach a consensus with others before making a final statement or resolution. Superzerocool (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC) (PS: again, used AI to improve grammar)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker There are many examples where I tried to object to a wrong block decision by other admins, or report what I see as offences by other members who are admins. The most recent of which are with the temp arb committee that has been established in ArWiki, check this message where I have reported what I saw as provocative remarks made by 2 parties. If you check further in the following history of this talk page, I have sent private emails, some of which were reporting and contrasting the way non-admins are treated compared to admins with respect to the blocking for behavioral violations, one other email I reported a very questionable block that turned out to be just plain wrong. There are many past examples for me, unfortunately this kind of action is not received reasonably by some. Words like obstructionism عرقلة or futile discussion نقاش عقيم has been used when participating in such discussions.

Of course there are risks involved when speaking up, one risks being called an obstructionist, or being threatened with a block. But for myself, I find it very hard not to object to some act that I know is wrong, and as member with years of experience and an admin, one has an additional duty to speak up to try to remove injustice. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have to recognise that as much as I don't like to say it, admins are in a position of power, with that they can really deter new users as well, so if I see a situation where I believe an admin is misusing their rights or scaring away a new user, I will tell them. I have been doing this since before I became an admin on my homewiki and continued to do when I was an admin even if it technically put me "at odds" with other admins that had been around for longer than me. On our wiki we had a case where an admin repeatedly deleted pages without providing explanation in policy to the point it likely deterred quite a few other users and could even count as a UCoC violation under 3.3 that I addressed numerous times. There was another case where a new user's pages were nuked for complexity (which is important to avoid on Simple English Wikipedia) and threatened with blocks but the pages weren't complex as it first seemed and it seemed a clear bite, so I restored the pages and tried to ease the new user. I would prefer not to link these as all these contributors are no longer active so I don't want to give them a ton of visibility, but as you did ask for diffs I'd be willing to send them to ElectCom and yourself privately to verify these happened if needed. Individual communities should be ensuring that all users aren't scared to scrutinise other admins' actions so concerns aren't immediately written off, so there should ideally be no risk for community members, though I appreciate even on my own homewiki in the distant past there have been cases of blocks made for simply questioning other abusive blocks. In cases where the community feel scared to report UCoC violations, this is where the U4C can step in as reports can be made anonymously. --Ferien (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't consider users with advanced permissions, such as administrators, to be "people in power." Users with permissions and users without them should naturally be treated equally. However there are sometimes users who misunderstand advanced permissions as authority and act accordingly. In such cases, I think the system is generally designed well enough that, if the UCoC is properly followed, the issue can be resolved either at the community level or, in more serious situations, through outside intervention from the Foundation, stewards, the U4C, or similar bodies.
I have had several experiences mediating between admins and non-adminis. The most memorable case for me was one in which an admin blocked non-admin user during an ongoing dispute. After the block the blocked user appealed it, and I first listened to the arguments from both sides. While I thought there were some understandable aspects to the block, I ultimately concluded the admin had misused their tools in this case. A more detailed explanation of my reasoning can be found at this link. Even after the unblock, lengthy discussions continued. But in the end, the two users reconciled and the matter was resolved without major issues.
Although this is simply a matter of following basic principles, it's not always easy to conclude that an admin's judgment was wrong and to overturn that decision. Nevertheless I believe it is more important to trust the community's systems and follow established principles. In the end, I believe that following these principles generally leads to better outcomes. 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 10:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with an administrator or someone with significant influence in the community is always difficult, especially if the other user chooses to ignore you, although there is no hierarchy in between user groups. I believe in good faith, and I prefer to assume that people may not realize the impact of their actions, but I also have never hesitated to share my opinion. Especially when I believe that an incorrect action has been taken. I prefer not to share links to past conflicts here. My approach is always to focus on the action and the policy, rather than the individuals. Speaking up against someone in a position of power could have unwanted effects, such as retaliation or burnout, which I have witnessed throughout my journey. Disagreeing with anyone should not carry any risks. This is precisely why the UCoC and bodies like this committee matter. I believe the committee has a responsibility to ensure that reporting mechanisms are accessible and take all concerns seriously, regardless of who is involved. --ToprakM ^✉ 16:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perceiving people with higher privileges, such as administrators, as people in power is unfortunately a common misunderstanding of their role. I can provide an example that affected me personally. Until 2024, I was a person without higher rights, after my resignation two years earlier. During that time, a situation arose in which I became involved in a matter involving the activity of two other users. One of the administrators at the time, who defended their position, blocked my account for one day. After about 90 minutes another administrator removed the ban and the case finally ended in Arbitration Comittee. ArbCom decided that the blocking administrator's permissions has to revoked. This situation taught me that the position of an administrator is sometimes poorly perceived by themselves and can easily lead to abuse. However, because the creation of free content on Wikimedia projects is based on collaboration, members of the Coordination Committee must listen to the arguments of the parties involved and understand their situation. ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator (and similar advanced permissions) should only have a technical role, but since these are usually experienced users who have received the community’s trust, their opinions often carry a lot of weight, sometimes too much.

Both recently and when I was just a user, I have had discussions with users and administrators with stronger personalities who were difficult to deal with, but never anything that became a violation. However, I have seen users struggle to express their opinion when they feel like they're facing a wall, and in most cases they simply leave the discussion. Sometimes this imbalance can create unhealthy dynamics. In these situations, it is important to discuss the facts and focus on the content rather than attacking people. If the basic principles are not respected, most projects usually have dedicated pages and procedures where the issue can be brought for a more neutral evaluation and possible checks.

We should always keep respectful relationships, not only in our local community, but especially when we are guests in another one. In that situation, if I came across a problematic situation, I would avoid immediately stepping into the conflict, at least until it becomes necessary. I would first prefer to speak with a trusted local user or direct the issue to a competent local body, also to make communication easier and respect local procedures. If I saw that the situation kept getting worse and nobody intervened, then I would step in personally, mainly trying to calm the situation down. In these cases, I think it is important to distinguish between supporting a person, verifying the facts, and managing the conflict correctly: supporting someone does not automatically mean agreeing with them, but making sure they can express themselves and be heard fairly. I think speaking against influential users can have a cost, and this is also why communities should try to make it safer to do so. --Torque (scrivimi!) 22:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not afraid of standing up for what is right. Perhaps the best example is this one, where I argued against an erroneous CheckUser result which led to two incorrect blocks on a project where I have no extended rights. On my home wiki, I have reviewed (and criticized) administrative actions since long before I was an administrator. Some examples: 1+2, 3, 4, and 5; the last, about respecting consensus on other projects, seems especially relevant.

The first step of helping others is ensuring one's own safety. I generally trust that people we put in positions of responsibility will not retaliate against me, but if another contributor does not feel safe providing help to a fellow editor or standing up to someone in a position of power, we should not expect them to do so. This is reflected in the UCoC, which lists "looking out for fellow contributors" as a behavior we "strive for", not an inflexible rule. Instead, we should provide a way for such contributors to report their concerns privately to the people responsible for resolving such issues, be that other local admins, a local ArbCom, the U4C, or another body. Toadspike [Talk] 23:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the UCoC should apply equally to everyone, including administrators and experienced users. If I see unfair or disrespectful treatment, I try to address it calmly, neutrally, and based on policy rather than status.

I also understand that speaking up against people in positions of power can be difficult and may create risks for contributors, especially in smaller communities. That is why it is important to build an environment where users can raise concerns safely and without fear of retaliation.

I do not currently have prepared diffs that fit the example requested, but throughout my Wikimedia experience I have tried to approach conflicts fairly and consistently regardless of who is involved. / Artemev Nikolay (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have a single public example with diffs that perfectly demonstrates this , my experience as a Swahili Wikipedia administrator, community Event organiser, has involved situations where I had to support contributors, encourage respectful engagement, and help navigate tensions within diverse communities. These experiences taught me the importance of listening carefully, remaining neutral, and ensuring that contributors feel heard and safe. I believe this principle is essential for maintaining healthy Wikimedia communities. In practice, supporting fellow contributors sometimes requires speaking up even when the situation involves experienced users, administrators, or other people in positions of trust. I approach such situations carefully and respectfully, focusing on behavior and policy rather than personalities. My goal is usually to help de-escalate conflict, encourage fair treatment, and ensure that discussions remain respectful and inclusive. Olimasy (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally experienced being blocked in the past, I know how painful and frustrating it can be for newcomers and I know how deeply discouraging especially when unblock requests are ignored due to administrative unresponsiveness or lack of time. This behavior paralyzes good-faith editors and drives them away from our movement.

To be realistic administrators hold significant influence beyond their technical tools. Because of this, my approach is to focus strictly on behavior and policy, regardless of a user's flag. To maintain community peace, I prefer not to revive old local conflicts here. However, because I remember that vulnerability, I have consistently used public noticeboards and village pumps to speak up for issues that is frequently happening and not resolved like using admistrative rights in a conflict where the admin is part of it. Here example how I reported this although I was newbie and the discussion was complex and related to violation of the policy of articles titles and was blocked for defending the policy here against veteran admin.

the risk of isolation is exactly why the UCoC treats "looking out for fellow contributors" as something to persue rather than a rigid rule. Vulnerable editors should not have to face institutional pressure alone which is why the U4C must provide responsive and confidential oversight.--Avicenno (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Q3

Access to sensitive information such as the U4C has and will have to execute its tasks, comes with a lot of implied trust. Given that this is effectively one of the highest elected offices in our community, transparency seems important. Please consider your current account(s) as well as any alternate/previous accounts you have operated (already disclosed or not).

Is there any past conduct or history that you should disclose to voters to ensure full transparency? This space is provided for you to disclose and contextualize.

Examples may include: Sanction History (significant community sanctions received that may color the perception), Formal Conduct Actions (formal conduct warnings or sanctions from WMF Trust & Safety, or under Affiliate Safe Space policies), Removed Permissions (advanced permissions such as Admin, CheckUser, any global permissions, VRT access etc. removed for reasons other than inactivity, or voluntarily relinquished them while an investigation or community discussion regarding your conduct was active ('under a cloud')) or warnings for the use of non-public data (a formal warning or sanction from the Ombuds Committee or a body with a similar scope, regarding the use of non-public data)? Effeietsanders (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The other accounts I own besides this one are Supersonicer (short lived clean start account from 2019), EPICrobot (unused bot account) and EPICtest (test account), neither of which are active. I would otherwise consider myself in good standing on Wikimedia projects; I have never received any blocks (except for some past accidental blocks), never been subject to any sanctions or conduct actions, and have never had any advanced permissions removed or resigned under a cloud. EPIC (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
mmm... On my Spanish Wikipedia page, I have explicitly declared my alternate accounts: Saluda-Superzerocool (a user without sysop permissions, short-lived); BOT-Superzerocool, InflaBOT, and SeroBOT, which are bots. I have been a member of VRT for about 10 years. While I faced some complications with tickets, uploads, and other issues with my account in Commons, I have always maintained strict confidentiality about the tickets, senders, and other information, even the good news received in VRT. In Spanish Wikipedia, in 25 years, I've been blocked once -and another where I blocked myself to de-escalate a situation-. My blocking was around 15 years ago, so a lot of time has passed, and my maturity has changed when I started. Superzerocool (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this question. I was a former sockmaster in trwiki :) When I was a newbie, I made lots of mistakes. In 2022, I blocked for six months for harassment in trwiki. I learned a lot from my mistakes. I have an alternative test account: User:Kadı Test. As a user who was once banned and then unbanned by community decision, I believe I can objectively evaluate both perspectives. I believe I have gained the trust of the community through the lessons I learned from my mistakes and through my work. I haven't been blocked from any projects since 2024. All my previous blocks were on the Turkish Wikipedia anyway. No T&S warnings, no permission removals, and zero incidents involving non-public data usage.--Kadı Message 21:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only one account, no warnings, never blocked. --Ghilt (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only one account, I haven't received any warning from Trust and Safety, no removed or relinquished permissions, no warnings for use of non-public data.

محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have another account User:Ferien2 for editing on public computers, and User:FerienBot, User:FerienBot2 and User:FerienBot3 (which is inactive) that are all bots editing on Simple English Wikipedia. I was only blocked on enwiki and metawiki once accidentally. Other than that I am in good standing. --Ferien (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I operate two active alternate accounts, User:Curtis (ESEAP Hub) and User:Curtis (ESEAP Hub Translator), both listed on my user page. I also have one non-active bot account User:Borschts-bot. I was once accidentally blocked by the AbuseFilter on zhwiki for 8 minutes and was quickly reinstated by admin. To the best of my knowledge, I have not received any warnings and sanctions. -Borschts^Talk 01:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have an alternate account user:ginaan and another rarely used alt account named user:ginaan Alt. I also operate a local bot account named 기난봇. I have nothing significant to disclose. 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 01:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bot CheckWikiBOT. Never blocked and never had any warnings. --Torque (scrivimi!) 12:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This account, my test account User:TprkTest and my bot account User:ToprakBot are my only accounts. I have not received any of the listed actions. --ToprakM ^✉ 17:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened account Pharouq engr, i opened it without making edits on it, then unfortunately lost my password then i opened the one i'm using.

Regarding to block, i was blocked twice for manual translation when i'm new editor. Also a few days later i was blocked again for making the same mistake. This happened when i was a new editor. Pharouqenr (Talk) 18:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a bot ptjackBOT and no other alternative accounts. I have never received any warning from Trust & Safety or Ombuds Committee or U4C etc. In 2022 I resigned from my admin and CU permissions, but this was due personal reasons not related to Wikimedia Projects. Regarding blockades, aside from the situation described above (question 2), I had one indefinite block on Wikimedia Commons at the beginnings of my involvement with Wikipedia (2010). This was in time when I had no idea of licensing or sockpuppets. After I gained some knowlegde and experience the block was removed and there was no reservations ever since. ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question; it is a good one to ask at this point. For me, it is my only personal account. I have made some initial attempts to run a bot, but I have not flagged it yet. The account is SanbotBot.--SanBonne (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I disclosed already on my candidate page, I feel the need to mention for transparency's sake if nothing else that I have been blocked in the last 12 months, for spam, though this was almost immediately reversed as mistaken by the blocking admin. I have not, as far as I can remember, been given any warnings, and otherwise have not been blocked on any wiki. I have not relinquished any permissions under a cloud nor had any taken away under such. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been blocked, sanctioned, or formally warned. I have never had a user right revoked. I have one alternate account, User:Toad's Pike, which has never edited outside of its userspace. I use this for testing how users with no permissions see the wikis – in other words, to see from the perspective of readers and new editors. Toadspike [Talk] 09:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In 2016, before creating this account, I created an account named Kadirabi123 (I only made a single edit with it). In 2018, I created an account named Azeri222. In 2021, I used an account named ALONELY for a period of time. Currently, the only accounts I use are my main account, a bot account that is listed on my user page and limited to azwiki activities (Berlinbot), and two test accounts (Testüçünhesab and Testüçünhesab000).

My main account had some old blocks stemming from inexperience, and most of the later blocks were imposed by a single person (some were justified, some were not; that user was later desysopped for abusing their permissions). In 2023, I was blocked for four months, and since then I have not received any further blocks. Five months after that block expired, I ran for adminship and was elected without any opposition. I can say that the block was mainly related to me being overly active and frequently involving users in discussions by pinging/tagging them repeatedly (and for this reason, some users also opposed the block). As I mentioned :) Overall, all of these experiences became a learning process for me, and I believe I have improved myself significantly.

In 2022, I was blocked on Turkish Wikipedia for alleged sockpuppetry; however, that block was mistaken (there had been an IP overlap, and internet service providers in my country mostly use dynamic IP addresses). The block was lifted three months later. I was also asked about this matter during my global renamer candidacies.

I have never received any warnings from the Foundation or related bodies, and I have never engaged in any activity that would violate the privacy policy; on the contrary, I have always attached great importance to these matters. I have also never misused my advanced permissions, and I have always tried to use them very carefully, without any issues arising in this regard. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have never received any warnings from the Foundation or affiliated organizations, and I have never engaged in activities that violate the privacy policy / Artemev Nikolay (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one account, no warning and never been blocked and also I have never engaged in any activity that violate private policy. Olimasy (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have never intentionally violated any Wikimedia Policy. However, during the U4C 2025 election I solicited votes from my fellow Wikimedians (who actually know my work and dedication to Wikipedia) whom I know they will confirm my integrity and hardwork. But it was never with the intention to disrupt the election process. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is my only main account .I believe in absolute transparency for a global role like the U4C.

Like many editors, I experienced a block during my early days due to initial inexperience because if you work alot you make mistakes alot. It was a deeply painful experience, made sometimes worse by the lack of administrative responsiveness at the time. Some blocks were wrong and lefted immediately and some were ordinary misunderstanding that can happen with any user. However, this became a turning point for me as It taught me empathy and shaped how I act today as an administrator. Other than this early learning mistake, my record is clean with no WMF Trust & Safety actions or warnings. No privacy/non-public data violations. No permissions removed or relinquished under a cloud. I served as VRTs for around 8 years and dealt with confidential information like people IDs and signatures especially in permissions queue with clear history. I participated in the dissemination of the preliminary survey of the UCoC in the preparation period by sharing it with Wikimedia medicine and arwiki community. I had my interface admin rights removed from ar.wikisource because I forgot to activate 2FA because my email was full and I was traveling with no violation. Best---Avicenno (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Q4

A Dutch Wikipedia user consistently refuses to use die/diens despite a user preferring use of those pronouns on their talk page. They do so on the basis that as an NT2 user, they are unfamiliar with such usage and prefer to stick with "standard" language (which would be gender-specific). Using the U4C charter, your research into nl.wikipedia when answering this question, and anything else you find relevant, give your opinion to this issue. Will your answer change if the user is a native speaker of Dutch?

Note that the standard expected is that of a U4C member that is presenting their first thoughts, after researching on this matter. Assume that merely referring to the community or using the Dutch ArbCom is not an option. It is important to share your thought process and reasoning for this question.

Leaderboard (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The argument NT2 is insufficient for repetition. There are tools that can help rephrase, and the correct form is easy to learn. For a native speaker, the arguments for repetition are even weaker, there were none given. So, the first step is to warn. Then we will see. In case of repetition, other options will be discussed. --Ghilt (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If a user explicitly states that they want to others to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to them, others should respect that. Obviously no one is going to be dwelling on a single mistaken pronoun use, but point 2.1 explicitly calls for respect of other editors and adressing fellow editors with their desired pronouns is in my opinion one of the minimums in that end - and as already brought up, it is easy to remember the correct pronouns and rephrase accordingly as needed. This applies regardless of whether they are NT2 or native, but even more so for the latter. EPIC (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone should be respectful to each other's preferred gender pronouns and gender identities. It does not matter the user is a native speaker or not. Researching and finding the needed information is easy in nowadays. Therefore, with assuming good faith, the user should be warned firstly. If the user continues after a warning without a valid explanation and repeats the wrong pronoun, other choices will and should be considered.--Kadı Message 21:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they've consistently refused means they have already been told it is an issue, so they are actively choosing to misgender the user. As a consequence, I would treat that mistake just as if they were a native user. I'd warn them and if they then continued, blocks would probably follow quickly. --Ferien (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since this user has an intermediate level of Dutch, the initial mispronouns may be understandable. However, if they received an explanation for the error and continue to make it, this is considered as a disrespectful behavior, contrary to section 2.1, point 3 of the UCoC. If appealing to the Arbitration Committee or the community is not an option, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the U4C, and the first step is a warning. If the user were a native speaker, I would be even a little less lenient, as the argument of lack of language proficiency doesn't apply here. ptjackyll (leave a message) 07:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To me a warning always comes first, because a user can make some mistake without noticing. So if the same mistake was repeated a block is the right decision. Pharouqenr (Talk) 09:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that person is already well informed about the preferred pronouns and repeatedly refusing to use them.

I believe the U4C has jurisdiction in this matter given that the local decision-making body (arbcom) is not being used here and because of UCoC section 2.1 Mutual respect:

“Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. … People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns … As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible.”

Looking into wikt:die#Dutch and en:Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_grammatical_gender: while it is not yet the most common standard form it is linguistically feasible. The not standard Dutch argument therefore does not override the UCoC expectation once the preference has been clearly communicated.

The key factor here is consistency of refusal after being informed. Initial mistakes by an NT2 Dutch as a second language editor is totally understandable. However once the user has been told the preferred pronouns, the language proficiency defence loses most of its weight. If someone is competent enough to edit and communicate on the Dutch Wikipedia then they surely are capable of learning and applying a small number of specific pronouns or rephrasing sentences accordingly. A final warning should be given to cease this behaviour immediately and a block will be applied if such behavior occurs again (native or not).—Borschts^Talk 11:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they may not be aware of this, and if it is still consciously disregarded after a warning, then this is no longer something that can be tolerated. In my view, a warning should be given first, and then if it continues deliberately, a sanction could be applied or other options could be considered. Because we are all here to contribute and communicate within a framework of respect. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for being late. I'm aware of the key issue regarding not being fluent or a native speaker of a language; it can be very frustrating because you don't know if you're writing, talking, or referring to others respectfully or in a proper manner. In this case, I prefer to review the language nuances and understand the differences, examining the user's history to see if these problems are only due to a language barrier or if they are recurrent. After that, I'll try to reinforce the idea to the user about the proper manner to interact with others. If the person is a native speaker —as mentioned in the question— my evaluation process would be the same: we need to investigate, but in this case, I'm less empathetic about language differences, because the user knows the proper way to refer to others. This kind of interaction is not accepted and we can't tolerate it. In the decisions, I prefer to apply gradual measures when contacting, correcting, or imposing any sanction on users. Disagreeing or just misinterpreting a statement is very easy because we're using text-based communication, and being supportive is not the same as being tolerant. Superzerocool (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC) (PS:used AI for grammar check)[reply]

The use of a gendered pronoun against another user's preference is a problem, for reasons which others have pointed out already, namely being in violation of the UCoC considering the other person has already asked to have die/diens used instead. That the community is not available in this case is troubling, though the Dutch Arbitration Committee currently has no members, and thus the community lacks a high-level decision making body. While the possibility of a block or warning has been brought up, it's important to also remember that these aren't necessarily the only tools available for enforcing the U4C. It is entirely possible that there is no malice intended and a native speaker familiar with the nuances of pronoun use can explain their importance. I wouldn't think my answer would change for a native speaker, though I would want to know why, if they are a native speaker, they would insist that they are unfamiliar with die/diens usage. The rationale used of being NT2 does not seem to necessarily apply in the event the situation described was changed to that of the first user being a native speaker. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Respect is essential in the Wikimedia projects and events, and using the appropriate pronouns is a reflection of this. Accordingly, I think fluency matters at first glance, but if the user mentions the correct way to be addressed, this should be respected and used. On the other hand, the speaker did not use the wrong pronoun by mistake, but insisted on it. Thus, from my point of view, this could be handled locally by the admins through warnings and then escalated to blocking the user, as it is violating the main policy: "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves." that applies across all Wikimedia projects and events before being raised to the U4C.--SanBonne (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article 2.1 of the code states Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. If only look at the given scenario, if the user was warned properly, I don't see how the behaviour would be appropriate. Examining whether the user is genuinely confused or deliberately ignoring this preference would be necessary. Ultimately it might be considered as a UCoC violation. This is regardless of whether it is their native language. --ToprakM ^✉ 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think after a clear warning that mentions the relevant passage from UCoC: 2.1 , if the user continues to use a pronoun other than the preferred by addressed users, this constitutes a violation of UCoC. After consultation with fellow members of U4C, sanctions might be applied. But the ruling in such case will have to take into account that it should be applied to all regions, with different culture backgrounds. I don't think that being a native speaker or a second-language learner plays a role in the case.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to make a mistake with pronouns innocently and in good faith, especially if the user is not a native speaker. Even a native speaker could make a mistake the first time.

I would start from the assumption of good faith and clarify the user's request, also because every language has different grammatical rules for expressing gender. If the user isn't a native speaker, I would like to make sure they have understood. If, after clear explanations and another reminder, the user continues to deliberately refuse those pronouns, then I would no longer consider it a simple linguistic difficulty, but a refusal of the principle of mutual respect required by the UCoC.

In the case of a native speaker, my opinion would change more quickly, because after clear explanations it would be harder to argue that this is only a linguistic difficulty.

At that point, the situation should be discussed in the most appropriate venue, if one exists on the project, or within the committee, while proportionally evaluating which measures are most appropriate for the specific case. --Torque (scrivimi!) 12:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, actual cases handled by the U4C tend to be multifaceted, but since this is a simplified hypothetical scenario, it seems there is a somewhat expected direction for the answer.
I don't know much about Dutch, so I looked into the matter a bit. From what I found, die/diens are gender-neutral pronouns, and their use in this way is a relatively recent development in Dutch. I think it is entirely possible that the user initially did not know that Dutch has gender-neutral pronouns. However, if they continue refusing to use those pronouns even after becoming aware of them, then it could be considered a violation of the UCoC regardless of whether they are an NT2 user or not. By the time the U4C becomes involved in such a case, it is unlikely to still be in the "initial misunderstanding" stage, so NT2 status would probably not carry much weight.
That said, I'm not entirely sure how the U4C should ultimately handle such a case. I have thought about it for quite a while, and I think the response would depend on the severity and context of the actual UCoC violation. Broadly speaking, Ig the U4C should initially conclude the matter with a warning. Since the nlwiki ArbCom is not being utilized, then this appears to fall clearly within the type of situation where U4C intervention may become necessary. However, blocks should be used only as a last resort, and only if the same behavior continues even after a final warning from the U4C. 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 17:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe contributors should make a reasonable effort to respect another user’s stated pronouns, as this is part of maintaining a respectful environment under the UCoC.

However, if the user is an NT2 Dutch speaker and genuinely unfamiliar with such language usage, I would first approach this as a communication and education issue rather than intentional misconduct. I would expect the user to try to adapt, avoid unnecessary misgendering, or use alternative neutral forms where possible.

If the refusal becomes dismissive or intentional after repeated clarification, then it could become a UCoC concern.

If the user is a native Dutch speaker, the explanation of unfamiliarity would carry less weight, but I would still focus mainly on behavior, intent, and willingness to cooperate / Artemev Nikolay (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is an NT2 (non-native Dutch) speaker unfamiliar with “die/diens,” I would initially assume good faith, especially if there is no evidence of mockery or hostility. However, once informed of another contributor’s preferred pronouns, I believe contributors should still make a reasonable effort to communicate respectfully, such as using usernames or avoiding gendered pronouns if they are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the requested forms. A complete refusal to make any accommodation after repeated discussions could become problematic because the impact may still feel exclusionary or disrespectful, regardless of intent. My assessment would likely differ if the user were a native Dutch speaker, since claiming inability to use or understand these pronouns would generally be less convincing and may raise concerns about unwillingness rather than language limitations. also I would avoid treating this as immediately punitive and would instead focus first on dialogue, education, and de-escalation. Overall, I think situations like this require balancing inclusion, cultural and linguistic context, good faith, and the responsibility to ensure contributors feel respected and safe within Wikimedia spaces. Olimasy (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This behavior is a violation of section 2.1 of the UCoC. Though a non-native speaker may need more information than a native speaker, there is otherwise no reason to treat them differently. Enforcement of the UCoC should first be handled by the local community, by providing information, warning, or sanctioning the user who refuses to respect the pronoun choice of another user. Your question instructs me to assume that referring to the community is not an option. Of course, the U4C would not simply assume this – it would examine what has gone wrong for the community to fail to stop this behavior. Depending on the underlying cause, the committee could take a targeted action such as those available to the local community, or it could recommend a systemic change, such as reworking local guidance or improving software to bring it in line with the UCoC. As an example, the U4C made such a recommendation for the MediaWiki software itself a year ago. Toadspike [Talk] 20:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under UCoC Section 2.1, respecting preferred pronouns is required where linguistically feasible. Dutch grammar research confirms that die/diens is fully feasible for gender-neutral use and the U4C members can use AI tools after carefully reviewing them to understand the linguistic context especially in cases dealing with foreign language not native to them.

My thought process focuses on persistent refusal versus initial mistakes. For NT2 User Initial mistakes are understandable. However, if they are proficient enough to write encyclopedic Dutch, they can adopt two specific pronouns. Continuous refusal after clarification is a deliberate behavioral choice to use non gender neutral pronouns and not a language barrier. As for Native Speaker The unfamiliarity excuse doesn't have any weight so tolerance is significantly lower. Since the nlwiki ArbCom is currently not clear if still active after U4C systematic failure case, U4C intervention is necessary. I would issue a firm warning based on Section 2.1. If the ideological refusal persists, progressive blocks must follow to maintain an inclusive environment.---Avicenno (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for specific candidates

787IYO

Discussion

This is a two-part question; the second part will be provided to you after the first is answered: you hang several paintings on your wall. You bought these paintings from a store where you're clearly aware steals paintings from your local art gallery. This is perhaps most evident in the fact that the dimensions are tailored to walls in an art gallery, and the paintings' frames are visibly off. What would you do in this instance and why? //shb (t • c) 00:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(for others reading, yes this question is a bit abstract, but you'll see where I'm going with this with the second question.) //shb (t • c) 00:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the third time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 37% support result in 2024 and 38% in the 2024 special election. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your candidacy states multiple priorities. Can you elaborate on your working procedures given multiple U4C cases from African communities where grave UCoC violations were made and how will you address the gap between cultural norms and progressively orientated UCoC? You promised clear, anonymized case summaries. Can you elaborate on how that would look in reality given cases are complex and nuanced, thus making anonymisation hard without loosing needed context?--A09|(pogovor) 15:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Artemev Nikolay

Discussion

Your edit matrix outside ru and uz projects is limited. How do you think you'll navigate the hurdle of dealing with unfamiliar communities? //shb (t • c) 01:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that most of my practical experience comes from the ru and uz-language Wikimedia communities. However, I see this not only as a limitation, but also as experience working in communities with different cultural backgrounds, communication styles, and local challenges.

I understand that unfamiliar communities may have different norms, sensitivities, and internal dynamics. Because of that, I would not approach cases with assumptions that practices from one project automatically apply everywhere. Instead, I would focus on listening carefully, reviewing the local context, consulting existing policies and experienced community members when needed, and making decisions based on the Universal Code of Conduct rather than personal familiarity.

I also believe that one of the strengths of an international committee is having members from different regions and backgrounds. Smaller or less represented communities can bring perspectives that are sometimes overlooked in larger projects.

For me, neutrality, willingness to learn, and respect for local contexts are more important than having a large edit count across many projects / Artemev Nikolay (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and Ukrainian editors often clash on in-person meetings due to Russia-Ukraine War. Given you're running for the NWE seat, have (although limited) experience with the Russian Wikipedia community and your sysopship tenure on the Uzbek Wikipedia, how would you address these concerns and endure proper implementation of UCoC on said meetings? How would you address failures of UCoC on the Uzbek Wikipedia as outlined in its respective case and what would you do to overcome these shortcomings?--A09|(pogovor) 15:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts connected to the Russia–Ukraine war are among the most sensitive and emotionally difficult situations within the Wikimedia movement today. In in-person meetings especially, emotions, personal experiences, and political tensions can easily escalate into hostility or create an unsafe atmosphere for participants. I believe the role of the Universal Code of Conduct is not to erase disagreements or personal views, but to ensure that all participants are treated with dignity, respect, and safety regardless of nationality or political background.

My experience in the Uzbek Wikipedia community, as well as interactions with Russian-speaking Wikimedia spaces, has shown me how important calm communication and cultural sensitivity are in tense discussions. I understand that trust in these situations depends not on taking sides, but on applying rules fairly and consistently to everyone. For me, the key principle is simple: Wikimedia spaces must remain safe and respectful for all contributors, even when disagreements are serious and emotional / Artemev Nikolay (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like many growing Wikimedia communities, the Uzbek Wikipedia has faced challenges related to consistent enforcement, limited local capacity, and varying understanding of behavioral standards. I believe these issues should be addressed through clearer procedures, better communication, and stronger awareness of the UCoC.

I also think it is important to approach such situations constructively. The goal should not be punishment alone, but building healthier and more sustainable community practices over time / Artemev Nikolay (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Avicenno

Discussion

Hypothetical case scenario question: A Hokkien-speaking user (Hokkien = nan) leaves you a talk page message about zhwiki admins suppressing (in the literal sense, not the OS sense) their use of Hokkien. They do so by threatening blocks for users promoting the Hokkien language and removing mentions of nanwiki wherever possible.

What would you do in this instance? In your response, state which sections of the UCoC would come into remedy here. Additionally, what do you think would be the most appropriate action for the U4C to take, in your opinion? (There is no single correct answer for the second question – I'm looking to see your thought process here; also note that zhwiki has a local ArbCom.)

(Full disclaimer: this scenario is hypothetical only, and I'm using zh for the lack of a better example. The examples are irrelevant, other than that Hokkien is a dialect of Chinese) //shb (t • c) 11:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your question. First of all I think that although this scenario is hypothetical but U4C members must not be pre-made or subjected to stereotyping influenced by media against any linguistic community because this will make their judgment influenced and biased. Second is that in this issue lingual context is important and so that evidence gathering is important like block logs, talk pages and diffs to determine if the process was maintenance like deleting spam links or it was surprising that community language and speakers and to make sure if there is a sister wiki for nan because this will give you another aspect to understand the conflict. Also looking for whether the users raised their concerns to Local Arbcom so that local conflict resolution mechanisms are not ignored or neglected. Third, referring to the universal code of conduct:

Chapter 2: Section 2.1 – Mutual Respect: Enforces the requirement to respect the diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds of all contributors. Targeting a language group inherently violates this principle.

chapter 3: Section 3.1 – Harassment Specifically, the subsection on "Threats." Issuing administrative block threats to suppress legitimate language advocacy or to intimidate users out of using their native tongue is a severe and direct form of behavioral harassment.

Section 3.2 – Abuse of Power, Privilege, or Position: This is the most critical citation regarding the local administrators. Utilizing technical tools (deletions, blocks, or warnings) to enforce personal, nationalistic, or political biases against a specific linguistic community represents a clear abuse of .administrative authority Finally, suggested action:

the presence of a local ArbCom on zhwiki is a critical factor. The U4C operates on the principle of subsidiarity—local communities should solve local problems first. However, global policy overrides local practice when human rights or fundamental UCoC principles are breached.
Subsidiarity & Active Monitoring: Refering the reporter to the local ArbCom first, adhering to the principle of subsidiarity. However, the U4C must log and actively monitor the proceedings to ensure a fair process and protect the reporter from administrative retaliation.
Systemic Intervention: If the local ArbCom fails to act, exhibits the same bias, or refuses the case, the U4C must assume jurisdiction. The systematic erasure of what seams to be a sister-project or linguistic community (nanwiki) links elevates this from a local dispute to a cross-wiki systemic issue under the U4C mandate.
Binding Remedies: If violations of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are confirmed, the U4C should enforce binding remedies: overturning retaliatory blocks, recommending or enforcing the removal of advanced permissions (desysopping) for offending admins, and mandating that local guidelines be aligned with global UCoC standards.

Avicenno (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Borschts

Discussion

What have you learned since your failed 2024 U4C candidacy? Given your extensive involvement with formation of the Chinese Wikipedia Arbitration Committee following a very unstable period, how would you use this experience while handling cases of systematic failure?--A09|(pogovor) 14:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question and I apologize that this might be a long text:

Q1: Earlier I added this section for transparency. I think it was a fair result given that at the time I lacked of community governance experience and people simply dont know who I was. I realized that the U4C has a broad jurisdiction and heavy responsibilities, so after I wasn't elected, I spent a lot of time observing the committee's work. I discovered that because U4C intervention inherently means a community or group is experiencing systemic failure, you have to be very precise about when to intervene and when to let the community resolve things themselves. This involves a lot of work assessing local community structures and practices, understanding the community's culture, and being extremely careful to ensure the UCoC applies while using local resolution channels as much as possible to encourage handling issues at the local level. The U4C work really tends toward deescalating situations and cooling down conflicts rather than playing the role of an active arbitrator. I believe that's why it's called the coordinating committee rather than something about enforcement. I think my work in the affiliation aspect (Hub, Usergroup) has equipped me with these skills since I have to understand what challenges they (affiliates and communities in our region) are facing and decide what resources we are distributing to them.

Q2: After the zhwiki OA2021 (Foundation's action), we saw a decline in the number of admins on zhwiki and users split into different factions accusing each other of connections to banned groups and applying labels. These conflicts multiplied and keep occupying the ANM, which created a vicious cycle where fewer people were willing to deal with disputes. However I don't think the Foundation's intervention was unnecessary. As they said at the time, the community was "captured". There were so many of them that it was basically impossible to get the disruptors out using fair voting mechanisms like RFDA or desysop (trust me we already tried that). But after that effective external intervention, the community also needed to fill in its own gaps. For a long time the establishment of an arbitration committee on Chinese Wikipedia had been rejected because people feared it would lead to oligarchy. In reality though, a large group of admins and functionaries gathered together could also easily form an underground government. Systemic failure happens because the system has vulnerabilities. This taught me that driving out individuals who exploit those vulnerabilities doesn't solve the systemic failure. In the end communities still need to think about how to prevent the breakdown of order. Thats why we have ArbCom now.

Every Wiki project is unique and has its own culture, so looking at community situations purely from the perspective of one's homewiki can introduce bias. My experience with the ArbCom has shown me that we ourselves will almost always understand the root causes of behavioral problems, the full context of conflicts, and what led to them better than any external body. So I would think critically to ensure that intervention is necessary, unavoidable, and falls within the UCoC's scope. However ArbCom also taught me that when the potential impact is major, especially involving safety and privacy, effective intervention must happen quickly. The kind of community reform I mentioned can take a great deal of time, so in those situations I believe U4C intervention is still necessary and ideal. I hope to help the committee distinguish when strong intervention is needed and when it is better to provide the community with practical reform suggestions. Borschts^Talk 23:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EggRoll97

Discussion

U4C was by some interpreted as a new global Arbitration Committee planned on top of the English Wikipedia local counterpart. Given your extensive involvement with enwiki what is your opinion on such stances? How would someone entrust you that being elected wouldn’t start an English Wikipedia oriented push in decision making? --A09|(pogovor) 14:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to feel as though the global Arbitration Committee interpretation is somewhat of a variance from the actual idea of the U4C. The U4C lacks essentially any authority on projects who already have a high-level decision-making body (ie: a local Arbitration Committee), and this is by design. The only exception to this is a determination that there has been a systemic failure, which is in general a high bar. Even in instances in which a high-level decision-making body does not exist and thus has not acted, the U4C only retains the authority to act on violations of the UCoC, not garden variety disputes. I'm not sure if I particularly understand what you mean by an English Wikipedia oriented push, but decisions should be made based on a manner of thinking of what action (or lack thereof) will cause a party to return to compliance with the UCoC. They should not be based on loyalty to a particular project or its members. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97: Thanks for your response. an English Wikipedia oriented push was meant to represent all different fears that appeared as enwiki is even passively very influential on smaller projects through policy ideas and translation of its texts. Hence some users at the time thought that elected users from enwiki could even enlarge this "soft power". I am not accusing you (or anyone) of trying to influence in such a way, but I don't think your answer needs further clarification :) A09|(pogovor) 19:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin on your home wiki (which is perfectly fine for U4C). Reflecting on your last failed RfA, do you see the issues raised in your second RfA to impose a hurdle as a U4C member? //shb (t • c) 01:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through again with some time from it, and I don't think it will be a hurdle necessarily. With some exceptions (and certainly there are at least a notable couple), a large majority of the oppose !votes are in reference to content creation and deletion experience, which I tend to find is a more enwiki-specific criteria for adminship (or, more specifically, the weight given to such). For example, a few months after that RfA, I ended up becoming a sysop here on Meta. Even sans adminship, I certainly haven't stopped attempting to contribute in the best way I can to my homewiki. More relevant to whether it will be a hurdle, while I'm sure it can help in some matters, I don't think an admin bit specifically on one's homewiki is a necessity for a U4C member (as you have pointed out in your question as well). EggRoll97 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, that's exactly the answer I was looking for! //shb (t • c) 08:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity... why did you choose to run a second time without addressing the main concern (content work) that was brought up following your first unsuccessful bid for adminship? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfA is a much different type of candidacy to an AELECT. Especially with being the first AELECT, and with only one comment necessarily being about content, this didn't give me a grounded perspective at the time of whether that was something that was sorely needed to improve on, or whether that was just something preferred by a smaller subset of !voters. It is clear I underestimated the amount of !voters for whom content creation (or, more accurately, lacking amounts of such) is a dealbreaker. I think AmandaNP's comment in the bureaucrat chat hit it on the head, in part It's clear the community values EggRoll97's work in edit filters and other technical areas. However, candidates without breadth — particularly in content and community-facing experience — consistently struggle to gain consensus, as evidenced by the oppose section in this RfA. In fairness to many of the participants at the RfA, this is something I likely would've avoided if I had contacted a nominator beforehand. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what bothered me about the second run, your surprise to the well established expectations and norms regarding content work. To run without addressing that issue felt rather cavalier, given how many people we've seen fail for a lack of content work. In the discussion part of your first run, HJ Mitchell said ...normally I would want to see deeper experience from a prospective admin, and a bit more content work. GAs and FAs are nice, but anything that shows that you understand how core policies are applied is good; better still if you've had to make and defend an editorial decision. I also re-read your debrief from the first run, which has 5 people supporting the need for more content work.

I personally struggled with writing a GA, I never could get myself to do so, and it made me push my run back further, but it was clear that content was an expectation. Luckily I got by on my NPP/AfC record, along with my featured lists, but I'm mildly concerned that you didn't feel comfortable reaching out to anybody to discuss a run before hand, and you didn't address the main concern brought up previously.

There's nuance to the pseudo-requirement of content on en-wiki, and it doesn't require a good article, it simply requires a demonstrated understanding of the core policies that are important to editors, and demonstrating an understanding of how those policies and guidelines are applied. If you failed to understand the expectations and requirement of a run at adminship, can we trust that you'll appropriately take all the information presented in a case, keep an open mind, and come to an appropriate conclusion? If you didn't feel comfortable reaching out to people for feedback before your RfA, will you feel comfortable reaching out to people for discussions for the U4C? It's not to say you make bad judgement calls or anything on a regular basis, I can't say that you do, but those are the thoughts that have been nagging at me since I saw you standing for the committee. I obviously know you could have grown and addressed that sort of thing on a personal level before this run, but that's why I wanted to bring it up, I guess in hopes that you say that you did. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can particularly give you is saying that I don't intend to make a lapse in judgement like that again. I can't necessarily prove that in any quantifiable way, of course, but if it provides you any comfort to hear it said directly, then I am happy to make that clear. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The U4C guidelines for this cycle included a requirement for adminship/high level rights. As of writing, you have 423 edits with sysop tools (i.e. on Meta since you were granted adminship). Do you believe that administrative experience is important for the U4C, and if so, how would you assess your own? Giraffer (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some administrative experience is important, though certainly not the only qualifying factor. The U4C is a group of individuals, and by that measure, benefits from the varied experience of its members. I would posit that a member should be experienced in general, though this does not necessarily just encompass administrative experience. I would personally assess my administrative experience as fairly good, though that's also coming from a place of self-assessment. I would say I've dealt with administrative tasks on Meta with the same cool head that I've displayed elsewhere. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EPIC

Discussion

You have extensive experience handling various types of (long-term) abuse. How would you approach cases opened by long-term abusers ensuring the overall U4C decision would be fair for all involved parties and inline with the current policies? How would your stewardship expertise benefit U4C processes given stewards can already enforce UCOC if deemed plausible?--A09|(pogovor) 14:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first part of the question; it depends on the case, but as a general practice, U4C cases should be determined primarily based on the merit of the case, rather than the initiator. Of course, though, most such cases end up/will end up being closed or speedy closed (example) to avoid feeding the trolls, which I also most of the time would consider the best approach. If a case would concern me in any way, I would however abstain from closing or voting on it, regardless of the actual merit, to avoid COIs.

Regarding my stewardship, I will as a general practice abstain from performing any kind of U4C/UCoC related steward actions from my side, and if any motion passes requiring steward action, that action should be left for someone else to perform. Despite this I believe I would be valuable for the committee and for my fellow stewards, partly because I am experienced with dealing with complex cases and issues from other wikis, which would bring a different perspective to the U4C, but also because I as a U4C member would be happy to give my input if the stewards discuss performing UCoC related steward actions. The stewards work quite closely with the U4C and often coordinate with each other on UCoC enforcement, and I'll happily contribute to keeping the U4C-steward relationship positive, e.g. by keeping the other stewards/other U4C members updated on potential changes/plans from any of our sides. EPIC (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you are already holding many roles, including some of them where activities might overlap. In your previous comment, you already elaborated why it makes sense to have a few people who serve as stewards and on the U4C, and I can partly follow this explanation (although I'm not much a fan of aggregated roles like steward+ombuds or steward+U4C due to the established separation of duties on German Wikipedia with which I grew up and whose advantages I see, too), and we've already seen the advantages from former holders of both rights. But you are also holding other advanced rights on metawiki that might overlap with U4C work: I don't think it's too far-fetched that oversightable content could be posted when a U4C case is filed. If you see that (first), would you remove it yourself as fast as possible (because that's the idea behind OS actions) and the policy doesn't handle separation or duties or even COI's, or would you leave that to your metawiki oversighter colleagues (disclosure: I am one of them) and just report it or get it reported by other U4C members? — I think that there are arguments for both ways, so I am curious what you think about it. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question. The hesitation is understandable (I myself am part of that hesitation in some senses), and my home wiki also has a policy requiring separation of roles (one can only hold one advanced right higher than sysop at a time). My answer here is largely; it depends on the situation and circumstances.

I am of the somewhat hot opinion that oversight, particularly OS#1 (non-public personal information), are at many times, at least in some sense, urgent. In such cases, I'd rather do what I can to protect the privacy of others when I'm available, rather than the community having to wait for someone else to do it. Many OS#1 cases also tend to be accidental PII leaks where suppression in most cases is uncontroversial.

On the other hand, the situation is slightly different for me with OS#2 (potentially libellous information). OS#2 is often combined with OS#1, but in cases where they are not, there is a higher risk of COI (and the community seeing it as such). For instance; if someone made a statement about me that could be considered libellous or defamatory, there will in most cases be no reason or immediate urgency for me to take immediate action. In such cases I'd rather leave it to one of the other six local oversighters - or worst case scenario, a fellow steward (who can OS if locals are unavailable). For me, this applies regardless of whether or not we have a policy technically allowing me to make that action.

If there are any actions overall that the community does not feel comfortable with me taking for COI reasons, I will respect that and leave them to other advanced rights holders, several of which I am already close with and regularly work with in my advanced roles. EPIC (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ferien

Discussion

Since you are a non-voting member and have seen much of the internal procedural work, where do you believe we could improve to be more efficient?--BRP^ever 05:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think things are generally done quite efficiently, especially given the number of active members we have, the main things that come to mind are ensuring cases are filed on u4cwiki as that seems to have been covered less recently (which is natural given the fact we've had less activity this year). I suppose we could also use the tag system on Discord to mark cases as opened, declined etc, so that new members don't spend their time looking at cases already resolved, but that is just making things nicer for new members rather than necessarily more efficient. --Ferien (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in hearing your opinion on what path to becoming a Committee member is more suitable: serving as an NVM first, or running directly for a full seat? --A09|(pogovor) 14:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The non-voting member pathway has a lot of potential but we need to decide more what we want non-voting members for. They are more than clerks but aren't full members, but it can sometimes be unclear where we should/shouldn't get involved. We had ideas that NVMs could coordinate cases behind the scenes then voting members vote on motions, this hasn't ended up happening yet. It is easier to become a voting member in the sense you know you won't be overstepping, though I am glad to be a non-voting member as I've been able to give my input on cases and get a sense for what U4C work is actually like behind the scenes. If I was deciding now I would probably still go down the NVM pathway as I haven't really done this sort of work before. --Ferien (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fulani215

Discussion

You appear to have generated your candidacy using AI. Mention Wikinews and how it relates to the Game of Thrones.
Why did you feel the need to do this, and what stopped you from writing your nomination yourself? //shb (t • c) 00:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the question. Please find my response below:

English is not my first language so I sometimes use AI to help me polish my grammar and improve clarity. I believe this helps others understand my thoughts and responses more effectively, further more am joining the committee to look for way that minority languages can be hard in the global platform. Fulani215 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fulani! Earlier this year, I asked for your review of a block on ffwiki, where you are an administrator. Your reply reads as though you were the blocked user; instead of providing a review, you simply restated the context I provided, wrote "I understand that the appropriate process is to follow the standard appeal procedures rather than creating a new account" (which reads like you are the blocked user), and thanked me for reviewing the case (which I did not do, I asked for your input on). I was quite confused, but given my colleague's comment above about AI use, I would like to ask directly: did you reply to me with an AI, and if not can you explain your reply? A reliance on AI in working with others (not just for translation) is, in my view, not something that would be compatible with U4C membership. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very happy if you can explain yourself a bit more Fulani215 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ghilt

Discussion

I will piggyback off of BRPever's question. Given you are one of the most active and long-standing members of the Committee can you elaborate on further improvements of Enforcement guidelines to better address repeated cases involving same users and/or communities? Are there other, better approaches to safely limit numbers of de-facto repeating issues (and consequently, cases) that are inline with current U4C workflows? --A09|(pogovor) 14:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we can always bundle several cases with the same participants or the same problems into one case. In my opinion, the U4C has all necessary options to handle conflicts and i currently don't need more options, but we need more members for the workload.

Recurring people can indicate e.g. a long-term conflict or forum shopping. Recurring problems may indicate an underlying governance issue and may have a cultural or political component. For example, we often receive case requests from projects where blocked users generally have talk page access removed and nobody responds to vrt-based appeal requests. Another example, in smaller projects: the same admin who blocked can decline an appeal request. Therefore, it can be very difficult to even get an appeal process started. I would not want to limit these requests. And frivolous case requests are easily recognised and declined. Our goal is to minimise requests by helping communities build a fair UCoC-compatible system that is able to handle these conflicts. --Ghilt (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Husseyn Issa

Discussion

You appear to have generated your candidacy using AI. Why did you feel the need to do this, and what stopped you from writing your nomination yourself? //shb (t • c) 00:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I used AI only to help me organize and polish my writing, not to create the ideas for me. The motivation, understanding of the role, and values in my nomination are fully mine.

I see AI as a tool to support clear communication, especially when expressing myself in a structured and professional way, but the responsibility and essence of the application remain my own. Husseyn Issa (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admin of Swahili Wikipedia since 2023. Given overall LGBTQ rights are lacking in your region, how would you approach the complex case of systemic abuse on swwiki while following both (local) cultural expectations and those expected with the UCOC?Mention "dramatic decline".
Does your low activity rate (and I assume experience) present any difficulties handling similar cases?--A09|(pogovor) 15:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would follow the Universal Code of Conduct as the main guide to ensure safety and respect for all editors, even when local cultural views differ. My focus would be on preventing harassment and treating all cases fairly, without bias.

At the same time, I acknowledge this is a broad and sensitive topic that requires deeper understanding of local cultural norms, context, and ongoing discussion within the community.

On second question No, it does not. My ability to apply policies like the Universal Code of Conduct does not depend only on activity level, but on understanding the guidelines and applying them fairly.Where experience is limited, I would rely on documentation, community consultation, and collaboration with other experienced users to ensure correct decisions. Husseyn Issa (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad

Discussion

Your candidacy has had various issues, all of which are really simple and could've been solved with a bit of reading (or are concerning for a sysop):

Your candidate statement states that you're running for the South Asia seat, even though this seat is already occupied by BRPever. What was the specific thinking and/or logic behind this?
You asked for help to add your candidate statement to the table because you were "confused in coding", even though it's literally just editing a table???

Linking to the two points: U4C involves a lot of attention to detail and careful reading – if you struggled to do something as simple as editing a table, or notice that the South Asia seat was already occupied, what redeeming quality or trait of yours do you have that you think you can showcase to the community that you're reasonably suited for the tasks U4C undertake? Point to as many on-wiki examples as possible. //shb (t • c) 00:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the second time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 31% support result in 2024. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kadı

Discussion

Hi Kadı, first of all, thank you for all your contributions to Wikimedia projects, and good luck with this candidacy. My question concerns your activity in sockpuppet investigations on TrWiki. You happen to be one of the most active participants in that area, and in my opinion, unfortunately, you have often requested or endorsed checks that would not be justified under the Wikimedia global CheckUser policy. For instance, if the alleged multiple-account usage does not involve any impropriety such as double voting or ban evasion, I do not believe a CU check is justified, even if the account owner chooses not to declare the account due to potentially sensitive contributions. A CU check, by itself, is an invasive action against fellow Wikimedians, so it should only be used when there is a clear justification. As far as I know, one of our CheckUsers was recently reminded by the Ombuds Commission to follow the CU policy more closely after performing a CU check that had been endorsed by you. I was wondering what your perspective is on this matter. Thanks, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker, hello. Could you please provide the case's name and subject directly? After your reply, I will answer the question. Kadı Message 15:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kadı. I believe @TheJoyfulTentmaker is talking about my case. 1denizakdemir (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker, @1denizakdemir: thanks for pointing that out. I am a patroller at Turkish Wikipedia. In my 6-year Wikipedia journey, I created lots of SPI cases. As a user, I have limited access to data. CU user group can control the IPs, I can only evaluate the behavioral pattern and use the duck test. I do not know anything about the issue, as I am not a member of the Ombuds Commission. However, I remember that CU @Vincent Vega clarified this situation in Meta. As a patroller, I do not have access to the data which indicated by @Elmacenderesi in the SPI case. If I was serving as a CU for the community, I might answer your question more. If you have further questions, please ask them. Accountability and the contributors' points of views are significant for me. Kadı Message 16:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the question, @Kadı. If I may follow up, my original question actually was not limited to a single case but a general pattern, like in this discussion where you appear to be encouraging Elmacenderesi to be more aggressive in SPIs. But going back to 1denizakdemir's case, a quick disclosure: I also happen to be in touch with the Ombuds Commission related to 1denizakdemir's case, not knowing that they had separately contacted the commission. And what I can say is that 1denizakdemir's statement is quite consistent with what I was told, in that the commission has found certain issues with checks performed by Elmacenderesi and has reminded him to comply more closely with the Checkuser Policy in the future. Now this nuance is important, I know you don't have access to CU data, but even before knowing anything, the check itself may not be compliant with the Global CU policy in certain situations, regardless of its outcomes. I was wondering if you had anything to add in this regard? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker, Dervişli was a long-term abuser. After the conflicts, their account was globally locked. Contributors' time and tranquility in the community is very, very important. I do not think that Dervişli's SPI case was controversial. If the Ombuds Commission suggested an issue to a user, the user should take it into consideration. @Elmacenderesi or @Vincent Vega may provide more accurate information about the issue. That's all I want to add. Kadı Message 17:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your candidacy lists Turkish Wikipedia as your homewiki, which has been involved in a number of block handling processes before the U4C, and the committee rejected them duly as outside of their jurisdiction (open case 1, open case 2, open case 3, previous case 1, case 2, case 3 and probably some more). What are your opinions on these cases and do you agree with their outcome(s)? How would you approach similar cases in the future, especially those opened by serial abusers (long-term abusers, sockpuppeteers, POV pushers) so they would be processed inline with current UCOC expectations?--A09|(pogovor) 15:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@A09, thanks for the questions. In Turkish Wikipedia, especially newcomers usually use AI tools for communicating in English. AI models suggest that users create a file at U4C. (Examples: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Report a false Sockpuppet block in Wiki.tr (Turkish Wikipedia) and Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Indefinitely blocked in Turkish Wikipedia over allegedly being a sock.) These kinds of requests should be handled locally as a principle of subsidiarity.

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.

Serial abusers (long-term abusers, sockpuppeteers, POV pushers) should not create requests to U4C because there are lots of open cases that await for a decision, and this behavior increases the workload.

I may suggest that the Turkish Wikipedia administrators that they should not revoke talk page access at first time. I think this would be beneficial for handling requests locally. Kadı Message 16:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify Serial abusers [...] should not create requests to U4C because there are lots of open cases that await for a decision? This implies their case may not be processed fairly. A09|(pogovor) 15:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Turkish Wikipedia there are lots of trolls and sockpuppets; they sometimes imitate each other to be undefined. Most of them are creating new accounts and starting to contribute to Wikipedia to create a positive perception among the community members. After being caught and blocked, they are sending block appeals non-stop. With AI tools' help, the tool forwards them to U4C. This is a general statement from my perspective, so I do not refer to any specific U4C cases. Kadı Message 21:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1- Could you please write in detail why you were banned from sockpuppetry in the past? I'm asking this because your sockpuppetry case page, old messages, and many of your posts are hidden. I can't see what was written on these pages, why they were hidden; nothing.

For example, the history of your case page is hidden. Or your messages around the date of the ban are also hidden.

2- Question redacted, because it included non-public information. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC) Yaldıran (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaldıran, Your questions and the other edit, which reverted by @Barkeep49, are unacceptable. I was indefinitely blocked because of sockpuppetry 6 years ago, I was a new user and created new accounts in the AfD process.

Turkish OS, @Elmacenderesi and User:Doğu suppressed my personal information because I got lots of threats via mail etc. I am an author of CoI policy in trwiki, and my CoI declarations are located here.

You are indefinitely blocked by @Dr. Coal in trwiki. Asking questions about my real name and my assets is not suitable; please stop harassing me. The edits about my real name should be hidden. I do not consent leaking my personal information by you and anothers. Kadı Message 11:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wasn’t the first one to post your name on Wiki. I wrote because you posted it. I didn't leak any of your personal information. I didn’t know you wanted to keep your name private. You can't expect me to know that. I don’t know you at all. (Even if I wanted to, I couldn't share any personal information about you because I don't know you. I never had such a desire either.)

I didn’t ask you about your assets. Please don’t twist my words. You can read what I wrote in Barkeep49's (which reversed because it was too long) diff. I didn’t harass you either, please don’t slander me.

Finally, my being banned from the TrWiki is unrelated to the questions I asked. Please don't resort to ad hominem.

Have a nice day. Yaldıran (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec, thanks for removing inappropriate question. This information were hidden by @Elmacenderesi and @Doğu in the past because I got physical harm threats. Therefore, I request a block for Yaldıran. Also, please suppress the edits that were located in the page history. (I emailed the Meta OS team too.) Kadı Message 12:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaldıran: This page is intended for questions, not for comments. You can ask your questions without including personal data. --Civvì (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kadı, Thank you for your candidacy and good luck. As you know, currently three of U4C's open cases are linked to the Turkish Wikipedia. I mentioned this in the case yesterday as well, recently, there seems to be a perception within the Turkish community that U4C's role is that of a "global appeals court". 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?? Thanks. --Adem (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Adem, thanks for your question. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, block appeals should be handled locally first. U4C is not a global appeals or high supreme court. U4C’s scope is about UCoC violations. Kadı Message 06:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olimasy

Discussion

Your submitted candidacy statement ensured maintenance of inclusive and safe enviroment. How would your action plan look like if you had detected serious systematic abuse of extended user rights amongst your colleagues of the Swahili Wikipedia, especially such that is targeted against religious, sexual and gender views? Mention Italian openess

Would your low experience handling any sort of abuse hinder your efforts working for the Committee?--A09|(pogovor) 16:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @A09 for your question,

If I detected serious systematic abuse of extended user rights on Swahili Wikipedia, especially targeting contributors based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or gender identity, my approach would focus on fairness, evidence, transparency, and protection of affected contributors. I believe no contributor, including administrators or other functionaries, should be above accountability. My first step would be to carefully document patterns of behaviour and gather clear evidence before drawing conclusions, while also ensuring affected users are heard and supported. I would encourage discussion through appropriate governance and conduct channels, while avoiding escalation based purely on assumptions or personal disagreements.

I also believe openness and transparency are important principles in governance, similar to approaches often emphasized in communities such as the Swahili Wikimedia environment, where strong community discussion and accountability mechanisms are valued. At the same time, openness must be balanced with privacy and safety considerations, especially in sensitive conduct cases.

Regarding experience, I agree with you that I do not yet have extensive direct experience handling large scale abuse cases at the international governance level. However, I do not see this as a barrier to contributing effectively to the Committee. My experience as a Swahili Wikipedia administrator, community Event organizer, and member of the Wikimania 2025 COT team has given me practical exposure to community dynamics, respectful conflict handling, and collaborative decision making in diverse environments. I am also willing to learn from more experienced members, follow established procedures carefully, and approach cases thoughtfully and impartially. I believe humility, willingness to learn, and commitment to fairness are also important qualities for effective U4C work. Olimasy (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit count and matrix are both extremely low, with fewer than 30 edits to your home wiki since the start of 2026. How can you assure the community that you'll stay active and continue to help out in such areas if elected? //shb (t • c) 06:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this question @SHB2000,

It is true that my recent edit counts and Matrix activity are relatively low. This is mainly because I have spent much of my time focusing on training and mentoring new community members, organising events, and supporting community gatherings and outreach activities (Wiki for Unversities). While these contributions may not always appear directly in edit statistics, they are still an important part of strengthening and growing the Wikimedia movement.

I believe that being part of the U4C would further expand my knowledge and experience in community governance, conflict resolution, and safe collaboration practices. I hope to use that experience to better support contributors and help create Wikimedia spaces where people can contribute safely, fairly, and without fear of abuse or discrimination. At the same time, I understand the importance of active participation, and if elected, I would make a strong commitment to remain engaged and responsive in the Committee’s work and communication spaces. Olimasy (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pharouqenr

Discussion

You appear to have generated your candidacy using AI. Why did you feel the need to do this, and what stopped you from writing your nomination yourself? //shb (t • c) 00:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @SHB2000 for asking this question.

All the experiences, views, and all the information stated in my candidacy are my own. And used AI mainly to help and also improve grammar, clarity, and structure while preparing the applications in a limited amount of time.

As someone that is very active in counter vandalisms, content creation, and mentoring newer contributors and community members, I wanted to ensure the application was well organized and also easy to understand by everyone. I still reviewed and also edited the final texts by myself before submitting it.

I understand the importance of authenticity in Wikimedia spaces and movement, and I take full responsibility for everything written in my candidacy.

Thanks again for the question. Pharouqenr (Talk) 13:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should note what you wrote before editing that response, as it's significantly different:

Thank you @SHB2000 for asking this, but here are my reasons for doing so: Making a strong application in Wikimedia movements is not prohibited if the informations provided are correct. I also use AI in order to make my application stronger to avoid grammatical error. Time factor also makes me comfortable to use AI because I'm busy controlling vandalism, creating content and also attending new editors and community members for mentorship. Thanks for your question.

Leaderboard (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharouqenr: That does, however, raise an even bigger question: supposedly you had actually wrote the nomination yourself (which I still question since using AI to improve grammar will not fully rewrite your text) – where are you going to find the time to do actual U4C work if elected? If you can't find the time to write your nomination from scratch, how will you commit enough time for U4C work? (and thanks to Leaderboard for providing the initial response). //shb (t • c) 07:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000

I understand the concern. The reason I used AI was mostly to help with my grammar and organizing the text better, not because I could not write the nomination myself. The views, experiences, and examples in the application are also still my own.

About time commitment, I agree that U4C work is serious and even needs active participation. Even though I spend time on vandalism fighting, content work, and helping newer editors, I still try to organize my Wikimedia activities and contribute where I can effectively.

For me, using a tool to improve wording is different from avoiding responsibility or not having time for the actual work. If elected, I would understand that U4C responsibilities require attention and commitment, and I would try to contribute responsibly based on the committee’s expectations.

I also think it is better to be honest about capacity. If I ever feel I cannot contribute properly to the committee work, I would rather communicate it clearly than to stay inactive. Pharouqenr (Talk) 12:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your admin-related involvement on the Hausa Wikipedia is inherently tied to content creation. Since your community has not faced any case yet, do you think that brings any improvement to efficient case resolution by the U4C even considering your low experience with handling disputes?Mention Wikivoyage and Wikivoyage
How would you mitigate different expectations of social norms brought by local African communities and the "Western" oriented UCOC?--A09|(pogovor) 16:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @A09 for this important question, below is my response.

It is true that most of my admin experiences on Hausa Wikipedia is more connected with content work, helping contributors, and also maintaining project quality than handling very serious conduct disputes. Also, our community has not really faced many major UCoC cases yet, so I understand why some people may see that as limited experience in dispute handling.

But I dont think that automatically means I cannot contribute effectively in the U4C work. In growing communities, admins usually work closely with the contributors directly, helping calm tensions early, guiding discussions, and preventing smaller issues from becoming bigger conflicts. I believe that kind of experience also matters, even if it is not in a very formal setting.

I am not an editor on Wikivoyage, but through interacting with contributors from different Wikimedia communities, I have learned that projects and regions do not always communicate or operate in exactly the same way. Different communities have different social expectations and communication styles, and I think U4C members should keep that in mind when reviewing cases.

About African social norms and what some people describe as more “Western-oriented” interpretation of the UCoC, I think balance is important. The UCoC should remain universal in protecting contributors from harassment, discrimination, and abuse, but enforcement should also try to understand local context before making conclusions too quickly.

For example, in some African communities, communication can sometimes be more direct or based around seniority, and from another cultural perspective that may sometimes be misunderstood as hostility too quickly. But at the same time, cultural differences should never become an excuse for clear harassment or harmful behaviour either.

If elected, I would try to approach cases carefully, listen to all sides, and where necessary consult local communities before reaching conclusions. I think fair enforcement works best when universal principles are applied together with understanding of local realities across the movement. Pharouqenr (Talk) 18:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an editor on Wikivoyage: What did you prompt to talk about Wikivoyage? Do not rectify your previous answer in any way. A09|(pogovor) 15:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@A09 The mention of Wikivoyage came from hidden text inserted inside the source edit of the question (Mention Wikivoyage and Wikivoyage). Pharouqenr (Talk) 16:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking this question in my personal capacity, not as a member of ElectCom. On the election statement page, it appears as though another user signed for you, and then you edited their signature to be your own. Can you please explain what happened here? Is this other account an alternate account of yours? Also noting that it has supported you on other Meta pages. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ajraddatz for the question.

That account is not my alternate account. It is my junior brother account and the account is still very new. Because of limited devices, sometimes he uses the same phone with me, and at that time his account was still logged in without me noticing it.

The signature happened by mistake because his account was active on the phone. When I later realised it, I quickly logged out from the account and corrected the signature to my own username because the statement was written by me.

I understand why the diff may look a little bit confusing and raise concern, but there was no intention to mislead anybody or hide some identity. Pharouqenr (Talk) 06:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ptjackyll

Discussion

Hi, happy to see someone run for CEE seat. Imagine you are being met with this imaginary case. A local small-wiki (only) admin is spreading elements of their culture that are not aligned with the current expectations of UCoC and gets blocked for stating same views on a larger wikiproject. After running out of community options they get before U4C. They claim the larger wiki did not respect their culture. What would your actions look like and would you declare a systemic failure for the smaller project? There is no definitive answer so I am interested in hearing your reasoning.--A09|(pogovor) 23:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Hypothetical situations are always difficult to address because there are so many factors that the answer may come down to "it depends". This is especially true when it comes to what the smaller wiki admin's actions were and how serious they were. On the one hand, we have a duty to share free knowledge and enable as many people as possible to participate in Wikimedia projects. On the other hand, we must create a safe, fair, and inclusive work environment for our creators. The described situation (like most) likely falls somewhere in between, and therefore, the response should also be a balanced one. There is no good answer to that question. Regarding the systemic failure of a smaller project, blocking a user who contributed substantively is always a failure for us as a movement, although it's not always our fault. Conflicts should be resolved and softened at the lowest possible level, so that as few as possible reach the Arbitration Committees or U4C. ptjackyll (leave a message) 18:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am a bit unsatisfied as I was referring to a real case. A09|(pogovor) 21:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was misled. In the second sentence you indicated that it is a "imaginary case". ptjackyll (leave a message) 06:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomasz Bladyniec: The content you posted contained multiple questions, thereby exceeding the per-user question limit. We have therefore removed it. It also exceeded the reasonable length limit for a single comment, at the top of the page we are asking to keep the questions "as concise and relevant as possible".

You are welcome to submit up to two questions. If you do so, please keep them concise and ensure they focus specifically on information or attributes relevant to a U4C member, rather than on other contexts, such as affiliation membership. Thank you. On behalf of the U4C Electcom, --Civvì (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few months, Polish Wikimedia community has noticed your growing conflict with WMPL and some of its members. We witnessed your argument with @Gdarin:, the President of WMPL, your accusations of "behind-the-scenes conspiracy" against participants of Warsaw Wikimedia meeting, including Cyfrowabiblioteka, the WMPL Board member. When the President pointed out your impolite behavior and asked you to apologize, you reacted with anger, demonstratively leaving WMPL Peer Court and WMPL. You wrote that "you wouldn't pose for a photo with us because you couldn't look in the mirror". You said you had a number of complaints about WMPL, without specifying what you actually wanted. I sense strong negative emotions between you and WMPL, and your comments indicate that the conflict may be about more than one issue. You've made some strange decisions that surprised many, like @Julo: (co-founder of WMPL), @Ency: and led @Wostr: (member of Polish CA) to write his votum separatum on your decisions. Each time, you were showing strong emotional charge and tension.

Question: Let's assume a hypothetical situation where WMPL has a dispute with a Wikimedia Foundation employee or an entity. As a U4C arbitrator, will you truly be able to remain calm, impartial, and objective in such a situation? Can EVERY member of the Polish community count on your fair judgment if you openly say you "won't share a photo" with some of us? Strong emotions, unspoken grievances, and personal conflicts are not desirable traits in a U4C member. Tomasz Bladyniec (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear community members!

I feel obliged to explain why I shall not respond to these allegations and questions. The author of the above post is in conflict with me, is currently suing another Wikimedian to the court of law, refuses to submit his own case to the U4C despite previous announcements, and has withdrawn his own candidacy for the Polish Arbitration Committee due to excessive opposition. I feel very uncomfortable with this topic, so I will not discuss it further. ptjackyll (leave a message) 14:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who I am is irrelevant to the essence of the question. Tomasz Bladyniec (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Qədir

Discussion

Since being a member of the U4C ought to exhibit high trust in someone it should be clear their behaviour is aligned with both UCOC and ToS. Do you think your actions reflect those? How would you handle offers of paid editing due to your possession of advanced user rights which would also present both a danger and a conflict of interest in case of being successfully elected?--A09|(pogovor) 14:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question. I believe this question likely stems from the concerns mentioned in the notes here. "Do you think your actions reflect those?" — I can confidently say yes to that.

I can say this very confidently: I pay close attention to the rules. The ToS are very important, and since the UCoC is such a critical body, I believe it is necessary to be especially careful about these matters. In all my activities, I have never put myself in a risky situation, and I believe I have always followed not only the ToS as a priority, but also all other relevant policies and rules to the best of my ability. In fact, there have never been any issues regarding my conduct in this respect.

I understand the risks and conflicts of interest well, and situations like these will not occur. I am so careful about these matters that even EPIC knows this well, as I sometimes discuss certain issues with him. If there are any further questions regarding this matter, I would also be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

SHB2000, sorry, I was expecting your questions. I saw this and thought I should write. I understand that it would have been better to discuss this earlier, and you are right, but my intention was not bad. I am trying to be transparent. For example, I have contributed paid edits to two articles so far, and they are here. Also, I once helped someone upload files to Commons, and they voluntarily paid me a small amount for it (I did not request it, and I considered it a donation). According to Commons rules, this does not need to be disclosed, but I am noting it here for transparency.

I have never requested any payment (the offers came to me from the parties I mentioned above, and I evaluated them). Because I personally do not consider paid editing appropriate in volunteer projects, although I am aware that it is not prohibited when done properly. Yes, I did it and I disclosed it. Still, I believe that someone holding such critical rights should be very careful in these matters. As you know, paid work is already done in grant programs and similar projects.

I have received many offers so far, but I did not engage with any of them because they were all related to topics without encyclopedic value. In other words, I think this is a good thing — I did not take the attitude of "let me get paid and write anything", and I have not misused my advanced rights, nor will I.

Regarding the evidence issue, I don't know what the stewards have, but I assume it is the screenshots mentioned in my checkuser candidacy. And I should also say that I have the complete record of those messages on my side (~~I cannot know if the other party deleted anything~~ (I checked now and noticed that they deleted some of the messages; I didn't record all the conversations at the time.), but my messages are still intact). And I also have no idea what they told or how they presented it.

In the checkuser candidacy, it was claimed that I requested payment, but I did not do such a thing — the other party made me an offer, and afterwards they asked me to promise that the article would not be deleted, to meet with them, and also requested other personal information. I replied that I cannot guarantee whether an article will remain or not, and I rejected their request. Later, they contacted several people, and one of them restored the deleted article in an inappropriate way. But I still didn't do anything—I only said, "this is not right". The only thing I did was fix the article's incorrect title.

Regarding the checkuser election, there are already enough people supporting me there as well. Most of those who are against me do not have objective positions—in other words, I do not find their arguments objective. They also did not even look at my replies to them, meaning they are not presenting any substantial arguments. I am open to communication and criticism, but there is no real criticism there. It seems that White Demon only voted against me because of the paid editing issue, and that is their opinion, which I understand. I think that is also a valid position.

I could say that some users may not trust people they do not know personally (on azwiki, many users know each other in real life, and local events are organized every year), so voting is often based on that and whether people are biased or not. In addition, I know many users on-wiki, and quite a few of them trust me in this candidacy.

Some users may simply be against me because we have some disagreements on wiki or because they do not like me personally (which of course is not objective). Also, one user who supported me in a previous vote ended up voting against me in the second one. Why? Because they engaged in incorrect actions on the wiki and I warned them about it. Since I follow the principle of neutrality, I thanked that user for their good contributions, while also informing them about their mistakes. One of the candidates initially supported me but later withdrew their support without any clear reason. I asked for an explanation, but they did not provide one.

I tried to explain as much as I could; if there's anything I missed, you can let me know. Also, if you have any additional questions or any nuances you're not satisfied with, please point them out so I can answer them. SHB2000, Thank you for your positive thoughts about me—I really appreciate it. I'm really glad I left such an impression. :) Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say here is this—let me put it more clearly: the person in question contacted me via email and asked for my phone number in order to discuss payment. Later, they reached out to me themselves via Discord. This was in response to 3–4 emails I had received from the other side, to which I only replied with: "I remember stating the reason" — they had asked me why I deleted the article. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that an article I created on the English Wikipedia, which I also explained on enwiki, was immediately nominated for AfD and deleted. As an example of how I handle such situations, you may look at that discussion to observe my conduct. In other words, rules are a priority for me. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qədir, thank you for running for U4C and good luck! As stated in the discussion section, I am generally supportive of your candidacy. In addition to holding adminship on AzWiki, you also happen to be an experienced community member on TrWiki with patroller rights. So, if I may ask a question, I was curious what your answer would be to the question by A09 to Kadı. E.g., what are your thoughts overall about the open and closed TrWiki cases? Would you have handled them differently? Thanks and good luck, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think such matters should primarily be left to local projects (i.e. administrators, local bodies and the communities) to handle. Dispute resolutions, SPI and CU-related issues should be considered separately, and U4C should only be used as a last resort when local projects are clearly insufficient, unable to resolve the issue, or systematically failing to do so. Matters concerning CU actions or potential concerns should be addressed through the appropriate oversight channels in a way that ensures procedural consistency. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, @Qədir. To be honest, I find this response a bit too generic, especially from a TrWiki community member. To narrow it down a bit, let's consider this comment by Ghilt on one of the mentioned cases. As an experienced community member of the Turkish Wikipedia, do you agree with the implied statement that "we are not there, yet; but we should get there" and if so, "how can we get there"? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ghilt. Users should first be given the opportunity to submit their own appeals. As for the answer to the question, I would say that this requires a healthy community environment, the existence and completeness of relevant policies, and at the same time appropriate local bodies (such as an Arbitration Committee). Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SanBonne

Discussion

You have cited a communication related grant in your candidacy statement. Can you explain how are you proficiently using said acquired skills given you have been involved in two U4C cases both as a party and as an outside commentator where the first involved language inappropriate for an user with extended user rights?--A09|(pogovor) 14:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @A09

Thank you for your question. I have improved my skills in the mentioned grant and worked with different communities since then, with the pleasure of serving with respect to the Wikimedia Foundation's atmosphere, community, and environment.

One last important meeting I had was a virtual meeting for admins of Arabic Wikipedia. I organized it; it was the first online meeting that gathered the Arabic Wikipedia admins.

The meeting ran smoothly and was attended by 15 admins who shared their points of view. User:محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (Mohammed Ahmed) was also a participant and even shared his experience in that meeting, like the other admins did. You can have an overview of the event from: Here.

Now we are working to adapt what was discussed since then and will have another meeting in the near future.

Going into the first case you mentioned, I was asking to respect the friendly space, and the interpretation within this case is bad faith. Reviewing the full topic again, you can have a clearer view of the case. Dr. Taher (as part of the temporary ArbCom of this case exactly) is telling user:Mohammed Ahmed to stop looking at the archive, as it is considered unacceptable chasing. Please review: here

Unfortunately, Mr. Mohammed Ahmed keeps adding more topics even after the answer he got where you mentioned, and sent 7 emails according to his mentioning on the page: Discussion page of the temporary Arbcom 2025

For me, in a wider view, good communication does not mean to avoid difficult conversations but to handle them with respect, understanding, openness, and acceptance.

Going to the next case, my questions were with respect, and as the user did not follow the admin guideline, I am wondering why. The following question was asked, because of respecting private space "virtually or physically" and the code of conduct.

Here I would like to mention that I am part of the WhatsApp group with other admins, who clarify that within this case or another, everybody is professional in the domain and speaks with respect in both public and private spaces.

Finally, I am always looking forward to having bridges between people and communities, and that should always come with respect for each other and the Wikimedia policies of the friendly space and code of conduct.

I hope my answer gives you a clear view, and please feel free to respond with any questions or clarification; I'm always happy to help.

Best, SanBonne (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @A09 and @SanBonne.

Let me please respond briefly to "I'm wondering why", I would like to reiterate again that the case concerns the abuse, incitement that occurred in the WhatsApp group for Arabic Wikipedia administrators. This indicates violations of the Code of Conduct outside of Wikipedia.

The UCoC enforcement guidelines emphasize in the Fairness in process section to abstain or disengage from a report when they are closely involved in the issue. You have a clear Conflict of Interest (CoI) with one of the admins involved in the case. You did not disclose any conflict when you participated in the discussion as other feedback. Nor did you state here, for example, that you would refrain from commenting due to a conflict of interest with one of the parties involved in the case.

You say that you are a member of the WhatsApp group, where the admins "within this case or others .... everybody speaks with respect in both public and private spaces". As you are a condidate for U4C: How do you consider the quotes in this case? Thanks. NANöR (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @NANöR

I have already stated my response regarding this case both in the above answer and on the case page. At this stage, it is up to the U4C to review the matter and make its decision.

Regarding the conflict of interest, my participation was limited to sharing my perspective as a community member familiar with this case, and I am not a part of the decision-making role of this case.

I am still available and willing to help if the committee requests any clarification or assistance.

Thank you for your time and effort. Best, SanBonne (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

you stated in the above answer that admins speak with respect "within this case", while the quotes document abusive behavior toward users. The involved parties did not deny the quotes. On the contrary, one confirmed them, while another demanded to identify the speaker of each quote.
Your participation in the case (on the 8th of May) was on questioning How it was learned about the conversations and alluded to "cybercrime" rather than protecting users from bad faith and incitement, and ensuring a safe environment for volunteers.
Despite the conflict of interest between you and one of the parties, you participated in discussing the case by asking questions of the complainant without disclosing this clear conflict.

U4C members' commitment to the highest standards of transparency and neutrality is essential to maintaining trust between the community and U4C. How this can be ensured especially when they will be entrusted with accurate data and sensitive cases. NANöR (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated my answer. As a member of VRT and other teams that handle trust-related and confidential data, I have signed NDAs with the Wikimedia Foundation on multiple occasions.

I remain available and willing to help if the committee requests any clarification or assistance.

Best, SanBonne (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SanBonne, thanks for all your Wikimedia contributions, and good luck with the candidacy. You are one of the leaders of the user group Wikimedians of the Levant, and I have some concerns about the diversity and inclusivity of this user group when it comes to the dialectal Arabic debate. I understand if the majority of the members happen to represent one side of the debate, but I fail to understand the situation if the user group is unanimously on one side of this debate. (Side note: I personally consider myself to be from the Levant, and I personally know how diverse the opinions and perspectives in this region can be on any subject you can think of.) This makes me concerned that maybe people who happen to think differently on this subject do not feel welcome in the user group, and because of that they chose not to join the user group? Having a convincing answer to this question is important for me and, I believe, some other voters who think embracing the UCoC by heart as a leader is important for taking on this responsibility. Best wishes and good luck, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. The user group runs with respect to their local policy of code of conduct of respecting friendly space years before having the international code of conduct, which the user group had the pleasure of adapting into the policy.

Thus, acceptance and welcoming are essential at the Wikimedians of the Levant user group, and everybody is welcome to join the user group.

SanBonne (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shukran kteer, Sandra. Really appreciate the response, and I totally believe the members individually do their best to follow a friendly code of conduct policy. I have no doubt about that. However, the "diversity" problem is real, and I don't believe it can be solved passively. The people whose perspectives about dialectal Arabic are similar to these examples I listed on my RfC are missing from your user group. These people are from the Levant, they represent a perspective within the Levant, but they are missing from the Wikimedians of the Levant. When I initially attempted to reach out to several leaders of your user group, including yourself, I received no response, not from anyone. I could only hear from you after I used your grant proposal's talk page. After that, Michel Bakni kindly started a discussion and pinged all group members, I still appreciate Michel's act. However, I believe anyone who reads that user group discussion started by Michel in detail can understand the root cause of the diversity problem that I mentioned, and I believe the leaders have a responsibility to mitigate that. Even if they are personally against the idea, leaders are responsible to create a safe environment for those who are not, and reach out to new people if necessary when they see a diversity or representation problem. I believe the ethos of the Wikimedia movement necessitates this. I hope this will be considered as a constructive feedback. Best wishes, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your update. If you have any suggestions that have not yet been addressed within this issue, please feel free to reach out to me. I hope we can work together to resolve it.

Best, SanBonne (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to understand your views on the temporary ArbCom on arwiki. Compared to what you consider an ideal high-level decision making body, where do you think it is doing well and where do you think it is falling short, both in terms of member selection and handling of cases, and how do you think those shortcomings should be addressed?--BRP^ever 06:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BRPever

Sorry for the late reply, as this is a complex question to answer. I prefer to start with the positive side by mentioning the selected members, who were two admins and a steward. They are known for their openness, responsibility, and neutrality, and are well-respected in the Arabic community. These are valuable qualities for ArbCom members to have.

However, from my point of view, the main shortcoming was the lack of a clear ArbCom timeline, clearly defined institutional procedures, and a well-established policy to work from.

The decision that was made did not meet my expectations. It was diplomatic and general, and it did not address the core of the problem. This ArbCom was established hurriedly because of a special case, and that should not be the approach in the future.

Resolving such cases should involve having clear procedures to follow, starting with improving the local ArbCom policy and learning from the experiences of international projects and other communities.

The policy should include expected timelines, the responsibilities and duties of ArbCom members, the duration of membership, and the method of selecting members and defining eligibility criteria (such as extended rights holders, etc.).

Having a clear ArbCom policy could resolve many issues. Hopefully, the community will not face situations like the one we experienced again, but if it does, the members should be prepared and available to handle such cases effectively. SanBonne (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical case scenario question: A Hokkien-speaking user (Hokkien = nan) leaves you a talk page message about zhwiki admins suppressing (in the literal sense, not the OS sense) their use of Hokkien. They do so by threatening blocks for users promoting the Hokkien language and removing mentions of nanwiki wherever possible.

What would you do in this instance? In your response, state which sections of the UCoC would come into remedy here. Additionally, what do you think would be the most appropriate action for the U4C to take, in your opinion? (there is no single correct answer for the second question – I'm looking to see your thought process here; also note that zhwiki has a local ArbCom.)

(Full disclaimer: this scenario is hypothetical only, and I'm using zh for the lack of a better example. The examples are irrelevant, other than that Hokkien is a dialect of Chinese) //shb (t • c) 11:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SHB2000,

I appreciate the time you took to create this hypothetical scenario. Mr. Mohammed Ahmed gave a good answer based on the charter. I could answer the same, but I will also give my response.

Going to the first part of the question, I would start by practicing empathy, assuring a safe and respectful space, and investigating the case further to understand what steps the user had taken before reaching me. Had they already contacted the local ArbCom? According to the Universal Code of Conduct - chater, section 4.2.1 Jurisdiction,

the U4C will not have jurisdiction to enforce the UCoC when a high-level decision-making body is able to (Arbitration Committees, Affiliations Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, Technical Code of Conduct committee, Stewards), warranting effective self-governance.

If they had not, I would first try to understand why and respond accordingly, because a single phrase cannot fully describe a situation that may be more complex. Accordingly, I could not give a direct answer to this case based only on your question, as it is still too early. As part of a team, I would also want to better understand the situation through a U4C member familiar with similar cases and who works closely with zhwiki to have a better understanding of what happened within the zh ArbCom process and why the case was raised here.

I would also need to determine whether the case falls within the main policy of U4C section 3.3 - Content vandalism and abuse of the projects especially if there is repeated removal of content without explanation or discussion. This could include

The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation.

Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view (also by means of unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources and altering the correct way of composing editorial content).

If mentions of Hokkien or nanwiki were being removed in this way, this section of the UCoC could come into remedy.

If the user had already opened an ArbCom case and the further appeal was ineffective or does not totally agree with the U4C charter, then there may be grounds for the U4C to accept the case. So, first and foremost, the local high-level body should handle it. The U4C can intervene where there is no such body or where that body has made multiple decisions that go against the UCoC.

For the second question, it depends on the details of the case, because the full picture is not clear from a single phrase. The key issue would be to understand why this is happening: is it a matter of the community not accepting this dialect, or is it related to the user’s behavior? It would also be important to know in what context the dialect is being added.

The response could involve better communication with the community and the user about how to include the dialect appropriately or, if needed, raising the matter to the U4C to ensure better accommodation of the dialect in zhwiki. This work should be done within the team and informed by the experience of those who have handled similar issues before. SanBonne (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Superzerocool

Discussion

Hello, Dennis, and thank you for running! You're currently a member of the LAC Regional Funds Committee – given your extensive involvement with this committee and participation in regional activities, how will you treat conflicts of interest on LAC-related cases if/when they pop up? //shb (t • c) 01:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000: thank you for your greetings and the question. Sometimes, problems arise between affiliates and the representation in the same territory or on the same topics. I know people love to write in their mother languages, and sometimes some expressions are too difficult if someone isn't a native Spanish speaker. I'm aware of many cultural differences between the countries or even in some regions in the country, and this aspect is key to keeping the the dialogue flowing and try to reach consensus between the parties involved: I prefer to listen all positions, try to understand the ideas properly, and discuss with other before made any statement or leaving an impression about the disagreement: it is too difficult if the people don't even share the same room in the real life, but at the end, I assume good faith and mantain flowing the discussion to reach the best agreement possible for the parties. About your specific question about Conflict of Interest (CoI), in the past, I shared my concerns and choice to abstain from the discussions, especially of my home affiliate (Wikimedia Chile). I don't share any information with my affiliate, even if I am aware of them before any public announcement. If I have any doubt about a potential CoI, I disclose it to the group, so they can decide about my statement. In my current role (LAC RFC), I'm aware of many relationships between affiliates and how they manage internal conflicts or potential risk of creating a conflict. In these cases where my CoI is involved, I share some initial insights, but the rest of the committee/team will follow the next steps, and I don't try to read or know anything about the investigation. Superzerocool (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, that's the answer I was looking for! //shb (t • c) 03:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for running. I think it's important to have Spanish speaking people active in global community settings as they compose one of the largest (international) communities. Your candidacy statement cites 20 years of experience handling dispute resolutions. Imagine being met with the following scenario: a serious abuser has expended every community process (bar nonexistent ArbCom) available locally while every admin is in-fact involved. This user then starts forum-shopping on a foreign wiki until they come before the U4C as a filer claiming they have been wronged on the homewiki and that it clearly presents a systematic failure. What actions would you take (if you'd even consider this case valid) and do you agree with their reasoning of the systemic failure? There is no single definitive answer. Best of luck,--A09|(pogovor) 23:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @A09:, thanks for leaving your question. It's not an easy answer for an LTA (Long Term Abuse), especially in cross-wiki cases where the evidence or the events happen and seem unrelated. When someone is thinking about a username, maybe there is a person taking time to create a narrative about their participation and involvement in our Movement. In this hypothetical case, the person would point to harassment in their home wiki, but we need to understand the situation of the local admins before making any judgment about the conflict: sometimes the best way to try to see the history is by reading/listening to both parties and seeing how the history is written with facts instead of taking notes from preconceived ideas. It's fundamental to hear the position of the administrators and how they noted the involvement of the user in the local wiki, and figure out the best possible way to re-focus the user to be a good user again or to see if it requires another decision. Regarding the U4C jurisdiction —if I don't misunderstand— I see it as a complex situation; because all administrators are involved in some way (or they don't want to engage further due to burnout from this situation), discussing the case could be seen as the user being right, and it may create an exploit for others. However, if all administrators agree, the U4C could help them find the best solution for all users.

(side note: I'm not a big fan of infinite blocks, because blocking can create a sock-puppet master —I remember 2 notable cases from Spanish Wikipedia— or an angry real person against the projects)

Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC) (PS: used AI for grammar check)[reply]

Toadspike

Discussion

Happy to see you run. Your candidacy statement says One particular area where I want to make progress is communication between the community and the WMF, in which the U4C plays an important role. An important thing to note is the vast improvement of communication from WMF to the community in the past seven years. Following is an imaginary scenario inspired by recent events. WMF globally bans multiple high-profile members of a community that is now experiencing a power vacuum and they turned onto the Committee for further steering. Could you please describe how you envision the communication between U4C and WMF (T&S) to help the local community to reestablish itself? There is no single definitive answer, I want to hear your thinking process. --A09|(pogovor) 23:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

👍 نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in responding, I became unexpectedly busy in real life. Actions like the one you describe are a shock to the affected community, as well as the global community, but they are not unprecedented. In the past, projects have been able to recover from such incidents and even strengthen their self-governance capabilities as a result. We should do our best to learn from their experiences. Without knowing the specifics of the impacted community, there are some general principles we can apply. WMF global bans take place when there is "a lack of ability by the communities to self-police", "all possible community-led efforts to address the situation have been attempted and seem to have failed", or the WMF has access to private information. After such a situation, it is important for the community to set up systems that can prevent issues from again reaching the point of WMF Office action. On larger projects, this might mean setting up an arbitration committee; on smaller projects, this might mean making it easier for editors to report their concerns privately to the U4C. The U4C could use its experience to help with designing such a system. The U4C would also remain in contact with T&S. Though the high level of confidentiality involved would prevent the U4C from providing all of the answers the community seeks, I generally believe that the U4C would benefit from greater transparency and outreach and I would do my best to help in such a situation. While I cannot predict the best course of action in every situation, communities are not powerless and should respond proactively. Toadspike [Talk] 21:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, thanks! A09|(pogovor) 13:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

👍 نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Milicevic01 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that you are en-N, de-N, and zh-N. Well, to be honest, I don’t really understand how this notation works, but back then I always thought that the “N” notation could only be used for our first language that we acquired as a child. Could you tell which of those three you gained fluency in first? Thank you. Niryhpr! 01:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember which language I learned first, or even if I learned any of the three languages first, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question directly. This is common for people who are native speakers of multiple languages. For these elections, it may interest you to know that I have pointed out significant errors in the DeepL machine translations of Chinese-language statements on a U4C case and provided advice on how such issues should be handled. I had written a lengthy dissection of our user language notation system and its flaws, but I have left it out to avoid boring you. You are welcome to ask another question for clarification, or we can move to my talk page for a longer discussion of language acquisition and language proficiency. Toadspike [Talk] 09:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ToprakM

Discussion

Hi ToprakM, thank you for your contributions to TrWiki, all your technical contributions, as well as the ones as an editor and an admin are really appreciated. Recently, there was a high-profile conflict within TrWiki related to Basak’s block, and you made strong points early in the discussion, such as noting the unjustified talk page block. However, you did not participate further in the discussion afterward, which I believe would have given you an opportunity to demonstrate your interest in conflict resolution in complex cases like that one. Additionally, I would like to mention the Umtcnyd case, where the U4C almost unanimously concluded that our CheckUsers did not have sufficient evidence to prove inappropriate use of multiple accounts. (They were also aware of Vincent Vega's 90-day argument before making this statement, if you check Vincent Vega - Barkeep49 correspondence on Vincent Vega's talk page.) There were very long local discussions following that, and multiple TrWiki editors expressed skepticism about the block. Despite this, you declined the user's appeal without providing a meaningful explanation. In my opinion, a reblock in such a case would at least require some explanation. I would appreciate hearing your perspective on this. (Disclosure: Umtcnyd emailed me after I expressed interest in their case on the U4C case's talk page, but this question is completely independent of that correspondence.) Thank you, and good luck with the candidacy. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question, TheJoyfulTentmaker.

The case of user Basak was indeed a notable one, particularly regarding how the block was implemented as I pointed out. Specifically the restriction of talk page access and email privileges, which I found as inconsistent with local policy. To my knowledge, I was the only user to raise this concern publicly. That said, the block itself was justified thorough sysop discussion with significant community participation, and a consensus emerged among sysops that the block was correct. Also I would like to highlight that I did reach out to the blocking sysop on the talk page of the blocked user to seek their final perspective on the matter. I should also note that Basak had already submitted a request to the Coordinating Committee regarding this matter before the local objection process had started. I believe that there is no procedural error within the local wiki process itself.

Regarding the Umtcnyd case: From what I've reviewed the U4C's decision called for a reassessment of the CU decision, with some members finding the evidence insufficient to conclude sockpuppetry. However, following that decision, I see that a reassessment was conducted on Umtcnyd's talk page, and the CheckUsers' conclusion remained unchanged. As a local sysop, I do not have the authority to override a CheckUser determination. Our local policies are clear. A block imposed based on CheckUser evidence can only be lifted by a CheckUser or through a community decision, not by an individual sysop acting alone. I closed the appeal procedurally months later, referencing the concluded discussion, because I had no evidence to counter the CheckUser findings. While I would certainly have voiced concerns had I seen a clear procedural error or injustice, the fact remains that the CheckUsers who have access to tools and data that I do not maintained their position even after reassessment. I understand the concern that my closure lacked a detailed explanation, and I accept that as valid criticism. In hindsight, I should have stated my reasoning more clearly at the time, and this is something I would approach differently today.

I appreciate you raising these cases. I'm happy to address any further concerns you or other voters may have. --ToprakM ^✉ 18:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Adem: The content you posted contained multiple questions, thereby exceeding the per-user question limit. We have therefore removed it. You are welcome to submit up to two questions. Thank you. On behalf of the U4C Electcom, --Civvì (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Torque

Discussion

Ciao! Your candidacy statements says I also believe the U4C can be useful in identifying inconsistencies, contradictions, or gaps in local policies. Imagine a scenario where a controversial admin was deadminshipped through ArbCom, which hands back the request to the community to vote upon. Given ArbComs are considered the topmost local-level organs, it is safe to denote such action as uncommon as they decide upon actions themselves. De-adminship eventually becomes a case before U4C. How would you act on such cases given the project has an ArbCom and is likely not a case of systemic failure? There is no single definitive answer and I would love to hear your thoughts. Best, --A09|(pogovor) 21:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao/Hi A09, I find the topic interesting and I'm happy to discuss it. I can share two examples I personally experienced, both showing how even a major wiki can have contradictions or gaps. I'll try to keep it brief.

The first case is exactly what you described (did you know about it, or is it just a coincidence?): The local ArbCom received a report about off-wiki abuse and threats by an administrator. The committee reviewed the case privately and decided to deadmin the user [1]. Only then did it become clear that there was a gap: the policy made no mention of this possibility. So the local ArbCom, despite being a high-level decision-making body, couldn't formally request it — and the rights revocation procedure hadn't been updated, simply because it hadn't been used in years (on itwiki, sysops go through annual reconfirmation). The ArbCom then invoked WP:IAR and pushed for the opening of a revocation procedure[2][3]. This ended up dividing the community. Many users didn't want to take a stance because the evidence was private. The process effectively became a vote of confidence in the ArbCom (some even wanted to cancel the procedure) and it highlighted the risks of unclear or inconsistent policies. There's also a debate about how much power the ArbCom should have[4]. The ArbCom on itwiki is relatively new; we still needed clearer guidelines and more experience, and no one can always anticipate every scenario. If you're curious about the details, we can discuss it separately; it would be quite a long story. The links provided contain everything anyway.

The second case involves an ongoing discussion about the appealing a block procedure: On itwiki, appealing a block were introduced in 2024 (as part of the UCoC implementation)[5]. Before that, there was no formal review process. Due to a lack of consensus, only users blocked after March 12, 2024 can currently request a review, and there is an active discussion about making the procedure retroactive[6]. Since then, many users have submitted requests to the ArbCom, which has had to reject some of them as ineligible under its procedures[7][8]. This is another example of a policy gap that still needs to be addressed.

When I wrote that sentence in my candidacy statement, I had exactly these kinds of cases in mind — and the importance of preventing breakdowns. I hope I haven’t bored you and that I’ve covered everything. Torque (scrivimi!) 12:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot: if a comparable situation becomes a case handled by the U4C, there are many considerations and analyses to be made. I don't think Arbcom was at fault - They aren’t responsible for updating that page[9]. One alternative was to put the decision on hold and ask the community to update that page, even though the request would have implicitly revealed the outcome in advance. I wouldn't want to give too many personal judgments, because it's a case I was actively involved in and my opinion wouldn't be neutral enough. What I can say objectively is mostly already in my previous message. Torque (scrivimi!) 13:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Bash007

Discussion

Late last year, you engaged in canvassing to buy votes from your home wiki in your non-voting member application. This was disruptive to say the least, but also highlighted a severe misunderstanding on your end of the entire U4C member process. Thus, here are two questions for you to answer. You may not use AI in any manner to answer this question, including for simple research assistance (you can use basic browser functions such as spellcheck, but not tools that rewrite content, such as Grammarly).

What is canvassing, and why is it disruptive? Explain all forms of what canvassing can look like.
Explain the full member structure of the U4C and its processes. What are all the member roles involved, and what are their purposes?

//shb (t • c) 00:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SHB2000 I want to make it clear that it was never my intention to buy votes, but rather as the rule set it clear that you can campaign about your candidacy to the UC4C. If I was intending to buy the votes I will not have used the Wikipedia talkpages as I’m aware it can be seen by anyone. It was an honest mistake! Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...but you never answered my two questions. //shb (t • c) 10:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Canvassing from Wikipedia means direct contact with voters to solicit for votes or identify voters and pursuade the undecided voters. It can be disruptive in the case that voters can be pursuaded or bought off against there free will. It can cause bias and inbalance in election process.

2. U4C enforces the UCoC which is typically civility in interractinv with other Wikimedia users, showing mutual respect and zero harrassment or threatening of other Wikimedians. The Universal Code of Conduct coordinating committee handles complain, investigate, define the final draft of the UCoC and provide recommendations for the UCoC best practices. The U4C consist of 16 voting members (8 regional and 8 community at large). U4C. May select four non-voting members may be The Wikimedia foundation may appoint two non-voting members and a support staff. The U4C default term is two years but the U4C may decide to appoint a member on a shorter term eg 1year.

The regional seats are created to create balance in the election process so that members from each regions as recongnised by the Wikimedia Foundation may have a seat in the U4C. Community at large include active editors from any recongnised community. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide some rationale why have you chosen the English Wikipedia as your home wiki instead of the Hausa Wikipedia where you are a sysop as well? How can we entrust a candidate who has problems properly listing their candidacy?--A09|(pogovor) 15:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A09 thank you for this question and sorry for the late reply. Firstly if you use the tool to search my username you will see English Wikipedia is my home wiki. I was first registered and trained under English Wikipedia. Secondly, I’m shifting my focus to English Wikipedia as I’m currently a New Page Patroller and a Student in Counter Vandalism Unit on English Wikipedia. Therefore, I’m not confused or mistaken about my home wiki. Therefore I think it’s ok for editor to decide which wiki is his home wiki depending on his focus and aspirations Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@A09 plus English is my country’s official language! Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the second time you have run for a spot on the U4C, after a 51% support result in 2025. What have you changed that you think will make yourself more attractive to voters? Izno (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Izno, I have learned more about community engagement as. i used to participate more in leadership and community discussions both within my community and the global Wikimedia communities. I have studied the UC4C more and understand my other things etc. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح

Discussion

Hypothetical case scenario question: A Hokkien-speaking user (Hokkien = nan) leaves you a talk page message about zhwiki admins suppressing (in the literal sense, not the OS sense) their use of Hokkien. They do so by threatening blocks for users promoting the Hokkien language and removing mentions of nanwiki wherever possible.

What would you do in this instance? In your response, state which sections of the UCoC would come into remedy here. Additionally, what do you think would be the most appropriate action for the U4C to take, in your opinion? (there is no single correct answer for the second question – I'm looking to see your thought process here; also note that zhwiki has a local ArbCom)

(Full disclaimer: this scenario is hypothetical only, and I'm using zh for the lack of a better example. The examples are irrelevant, other than that Hokkien is a dialect of Chinese) //shb (t • c) 11:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000

Hello, based on this hypothetical scenario, and as zhwiki has a local ArbCom:

Q1: What would I do in this instance?

I would ask the user who has messaged me on my talk page whether the matter has been brought to the attention of the local ArbCom; as mentioned in the U4C charter#4.2.1. Jurisdiction "the U4C will not have jurisdiction to enforce the UCoC when a high-level decision-making body is able to". There are two pathways from this point, either the matter has been brought in a case presented to the local high-level body or it hasn't been, before U4C can intervene, it should be handled by the high-level body (local ArbCom) first, and if it has been handled by local ArbCom, the user still objects to the result and thinks that no remedy has been provided for claimed violations, has he/she/they went to appeal?

I would actually put a link to the U4C Charter and the relevant section of it, so that the user who messaged me understands the process better, this will also help highlight that U4C complies with the principles of self-governance as also mentioned in the charter.

The relevant UCoC sections that would come into remedy here are in my opinion, keeping in mind that this assumes that indeed violations have taken place, which I can't form a personal opinion on just judging by the message on my talk page:

The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation.
Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff. (Threatening a block)

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."

Just based on the messaged I received on my talk page, I don't assume that the admins of zhwiki have done something wrong, or in other words committed in UCoC violations, since words can have different meaning to different people, one should know the full story, and hear from both sides.

So, first and foremost the local high-level body should handle the case. U4C can intervene in cases where there is no local high-level body, or the high-level body has made multiple decisions that go against UCoC.

Q2: what do you think would be the most appropriate action for the U4C to take, in your opinion?

If the user still thinks that there are unaddressed violations after exhausting the process and appeal with local ArbCom, he/she/they could present a case to U4C that U4C could accept at this point, in determining whether to accept the case after exhausting local process with ArbCom, I would ask the following questions:

1. Is there a prior consensus regarding prohibition of use of Hokkien dialect?

2. What exactly is prohibited: the use of the dialect in the main namespace (Article namespace)? or also using it to make a statement in a users' page in user namespace or using it between two people discussing in a talk page?

3. Does this prohibition targets this dialect only? Because Chinese has many dialects, it would be useful to know if there is an element of discrimination in this hypothetical scenario.

3. Regarding "removing mentions of nanwiki wherever possible", if the case is brought before U4C, after exhausting the process with local high-level body (ArbCom), I would ask for specific examples of this act, it might be justified in certain cases, what comes to mind, if applied universally to all languages and dialects. My view is, that it is not permissible to remove the mentioning of nanwiki from the zhwiki article about the dialect.

I would consult with fellow members of U4C on what to do if the case is accepted, and there was a determination that indeed violations have taken place, sanctions might be required especially in cases of clear, repeated, incivility or harassment. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000 Also, for a future hypothetical scenario, Arabic has many dialects like Chinese. So this hypothetical scenario could be applied to ArWiki, but we don't have a local ArbCom in reality. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح, thank you for running for U4C and good luck with your candidacy. I think you gave a great answer to the above question by SHB2000. Something very similar happened in 2024, and you were the only one who pointed out that an admin had used revision suppression in a way that was not consistent with the policies. I really appreciate that you stood up for me at that time, even though, as I can see from the babel box on your profile, you personally oppose Wikipedia editions in Arabic dialects. My question is: in situations like that, where an administrator acts in a way that may not be consistent with policy, do you think there could sometimes be social pressure that discourages other editors or admins from speaking up? Best wishes and good luck, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker Hello, yes in a situation regarding the "language/dialect" debate and the use of dialects in written form, some societal pressure might play a part in the action/inaction of some admins or editors. This might happen in any Wikipedia, but there is also a chance that it happens more in Arabic Wikipedia.

I would also note that there might be a problem in speaking up when an admin makes a decision that is not consistent with policy in topics other than the 'language/dialect' debate. Power structures and alignment of editors and admins, not wanting to be a party to a conflict or to spend time discussing an issue, all these are factors that would influence the action of members, in any wiki. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

مرحباً @محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح:، سؤالي الأول: في ويكيبيديا استخدمت صلاحيتك الإدارية في منع مستخدم كنت معه على خلاف مباشر، وهذا يتنافى مع معايير الموسوعة، ومخالفاً للصلاحيات الإدارية، وأيضاً لوصفك لحدث مر عليه قرابة نصف سنة (6 أشهر)، هنا، وهذا سيضعك في موضع تفتقر فيه إلى المعرفة العامة إلى السياسات العالمية بدقة، والتصرف أو اتخاذ القرارات المناسبة، وفق ما ورد في Be knowledgeable about global policies, including the Universal Code of Conduct, and should work to gain knowledge of local policies and culture for any work the U4C handles. فكيف ستتعامل مع هكذا حالات في المستقبل؟

سؤالي الثاني: كتبت في صفحة المستخدم الخاصة بك في ويكبيديا العربية أنك تعارض المستخدمين الذين يكتبون بغير لغنهم في لا أجد مبررًا أو عذرًا يبرر مساهمة المستخدمين العرب في ويكيبيديات غير عربية، هناك عذر وحيد يقبل، وهو ليس عذرًا، لكنه مبرر قوي للمشاركة في ويكيبيديا أخرى، ألا وهو أن يكتب المساهم في ويكيبيديا بغير لغته للتعريف بما يخص هويته، أقصد الوطن والدين والتاريخ وما إلى ذلك. غير ذلك، أعتقد أنه غير مقبول، فلماذا قد تشارك في ويكيبيديا بغير لغتك؟!، وهذا عكس ما تشجع عليه مشاريع ويكيميديا بالكتابة حسب ما تتقنه من لغات في المشاريع الأخرى، وأيضاً يساهم بشكل كبير في تنوع المقالات بالمشاريع الشقيقة، مثلاً لو شخص يتقن لغة أو عدة لغات ما هو الضرر الذي يسببه لو قام بالكتابة باللغات التي يتقنها؟--Mohammed Qays (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammed Qays مرحبًا، بخصوص سؤالك الأول فأرغب جدًّا في الرد عليه. لكن لعلنا نرى أولًا رأي لجنة الانتخابات لأنه يخص قضية مفتوحة. أقول فقط: من فضلك اذكر حقائق الموضوع كاملة.

ردًّا على سؤالك الثاني: هذا النص موجود في صفحة المستخدم عندي منذ 2009، في زمن كانت في ويكيبيديا العربية متأخرة كثيرًا في المحتوى كمًّا ونوعًا مقارنة بقائمة كبيرة من الويكيبيديات الأخرى. موقفي كان أنه علينا أن نركز جهودنا على تطوير المشروع العربي. هذا لا يعني أني كنت سابقًا "أعارض المستخدمين" وبالتأكيد الوضع تغير الآن. ليس لدي موقف "يعارض المستخدمين" الذين يساهمون في الويكيبيديات العربية؛ نمت ويكيبيديا العربية في المحتوى، وأدوات مثل ترجمة المحتوى أصبحت تسهل تنمية ويكيبيديا العربية وغيرها أكثر وأكثر. أنا منفتح تمامًا على المساهمة في ويكيبيديات ومشاريع أخرى وأدرك أهمية النقل والترجمة؛ فأنا مهتم بالكتابة عن بلدان غير إنجليزية، وويكيبيديا الإنجليزية هي المكان الذي ألجأ إليه للترجمة عن هذه المواضيع.

كنت أتوقع مثل هذا السؤال، وربما أعدل النص في صفحة المستخدم لإيصال الرسالة المقصودة وهي الحاجة إلى تركيز الجهود على تطوير المشاريع العربية مع عدم معارضة المساهمة في مشاريع غير العربية بصفة عامة. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Civvì Hello, I want to give a more elaborate answer to the first question, but it relates to a current open case, Can I give my answer here or not? محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح القصد في سؤالي الأول هو ليس فيما يخص القضية المفتوحة ولكن كيف ستتعامل بصفتك عضواً في U4Cمع هكذا إجراءات لو حدثت في المستقبل لمستخدم ما وما هي الحلول المناسبة وفق ما تنص عليها السياسات العالمية؟ Mohammed Qays (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح: as far as I understand the first part of the question is about your use of admin rights on the local project and you can reply about that. --Civvì (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammed Qays I will answer the first question, I will try to answer in points to give a more complete chronology of events in ArWiki:

You said "suggesting insufficient familiarity with global policies and the ability to act or make appropriate decisions," That is not true; as I have submitted a block request earlier, and instead of blocking the offending user, or even giving him a second warning (because he received a warning in a previous block request). I was threatened with a block by an admin. If I am not aware that I should not use my admin rights against a user who is in a conflict with me I wouldn't have asked other admins to block him.
Months have passed since the previous block request I submitted, the admin who previously threatened me with a block has defended his position by saying that "it is natural to support the other party because he writes articles and develops policies" He said that publicly in a complaint page! This directly goes against UCoC which states "
Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement
". . And the more troubling thing here, is that his comment remained unanswered by any other admin except for one, only Karim Ahmed responded to this objectionable comment.
One uninvolved user, who was appointed as a member of a 'temp arbitrary committee has previously made a statement that indicate that there is no arbitration body that would act as a fair arbiter between users who accuse other users of alignment and just taking sides with other user. He basically stated that there might be "Failure of the System" in ArWiki.
This user, along with 2 others were appointed in a temp arbitrary committee, and after more than 10 months of investigating, they released a very problematic statement, which I think contradicts the UCoC; that statement contained the following "Despite the seriousness of the violations identified, the committee decided—in the interests of the community and to ensure that no further contributions are lost—not to impose retroactive penalties at this stage"

I am asking you, I wouldn't need anwser, but do you believe that the fear of a loss of contributors can be given as a reason not to block an offending user in any situation? And specifically not to block an offending admin who repeatedly over years thrown unfounded accusations of bad faith against multiple users in many discussions, and has continued to do that after receiving a warning and multiple complaints?. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammed Qays As a member of U4C, when a case is investigeted, one should hear from both sides and do the necessary investigation, one should ask the following questions:

What is the conduct of the blocked user?
What is the surrounding circumstances that led to this block by an involved admin?
Is there 'mitigating circumstances'?
What is the state of governance in this project?
Are there any signs that show that experienced accomplished users being treated differently because they are accomplished?
Has this admin shown that he is/was willing to let the matter be handled by other parties?

Like the previous answers I gave for hypothetical questions, I will consult with other members of U4C, and try to reach a decision that makes sure that UCoC is applied equally to all users with no preferential treatment, and also guarding against misuse of admin rights. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deepl translation (AI chatgpt)

* Hello @محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح:, my first question is: on Wikipedia, you used your administrative privileges to block a user with whom you were in direct conflict. This contradicts the encyclopedia’s standards and constitutes misuse of administrative tools. Additionally, regarding your description of an incident that occurred nearly half a year ago (6 months ago), here, this places you in a position suggesting insufficient familiarity with global policies and the ability to act or make appropriate decisions, in line with the statement: Be knowledgeable about global policies, including the Universal Code of Conduct, and should work to gain knowledge of local policies and culture for any work the U4C handles. So, how would you deal with similar situations in the future?

My second question: you wrote on your Arabic Wikipedia user page that you oppose users contributing in languages other than their own, stating: I do not find any justification or excuse for Arab users contributing to non-Arabic Wikipedias. There is only one acceptable justification — though not really an excuse, but rather a strong reason for contributing to another Wikipedia — and that is when a contributor writes in a language other than their own to present matters related to their identity, meaning their homeland, religion, history, and so on. Other than that, I believe it is unacceptable. Why would you contribute to a Wikipedia that is not in your own language?!

This goes against what Wikimedia projects encourage regarding contributing in any languages a user is proficient in across other projects. It also significantly contributes to the diversity of articles across sister projects. For example, if a person is proficient in one or more languages, what harm is caused by contributing in the languages they know?--Mohammed Qays (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deepl translation (Reviewed by responder)

Hello, regarding your first question, I would very much like to respond to it. But perhaps we should first see the Election Committee’s opinion, since this is an ongoing issue. I’ll just say this: please provide the full facts of the matter.

In response to your second question: This text has been on my user page since 2009, at a time when Arabic Wikipedia was far behind in terms of both the quantity and quality of its content compared to a long list of other Wikipedias. My position was that we should focus our efforts on developing the Arabic project. This does not mean that I was previously “opposed to users,” and the situation has certainly changed now. I do not hold a position “opposed to users” who contribute to Arabic Wikipedias; Arabic Wikipedia has grown in content, and tools such as content translation are making it easier and easier to develop Arabic Wikipedia and others. I am completely open to contributing to other Wikipedias and projects and recognize the importance of translation; I am interested in writing about non-English-speaking countries, and English Wikipedia is where I turn for translations on these topics.

I was expecting a question like this, and I may edit the text on my user page to convey the intended message, which is the need to focus efforts on developing Arabic projects while not opposing contributions to non-Arabic projects in general.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح Mohamed Ahmed (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

기나ㅏㄴ

Discussion

Your global rollbacker candidacy stated [...] a serious issue involving the abuse of admin tools on kowiki. I worked to help resolve the situation and contributed to establishing or refining several local policies and guidelines [...] from 2024. Could you perhaps summarise said issues, counter-abuse actions you (helped to) took and how do those reflect with current expectations for user behaviour as outlined in UCoC? If this abuse became a U4C case, could you comment on whether it would constitute as a systemic failure. Thanks,--A09|(pogovor) 15:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This incident was very sensitive within local community, so I'd like to address it carefully.

First, I will explain the incident itself in more detail. I personally respect this user as a contributor. In 2021, this administrator initiated something called "Delete-a-thon".(link) They argued that articles related to associations and organizations were "mass-produced articles" and that more than 900 legitimate articles should be deleted in bulk. Due to opposition from other users, the proposal ultimately failed.

In 2024, the same admin again claimed that articles related to bus terminals on kowiki were mass-produced articles and announced that they would be deleted in bulk.(link, yes, that purple nickname is me) The admin then proceeded with large-scale deletions. Although many users opposed this action, the administrator refused to restore the pages. Eventually, I even created a massundelete tool myself and restored all of the deleted pages.

Afterward, the admin partially apologized for their actions, and following this incident, I took the lead in quickly passing the CSD policy, which had already been under preparation for introduction.(link) However, a few months later, the same administrator once again described school-related articles as mass-produced articles and deleted them.(link) The admin also interpreted the newly introduced CSD policy arbitrarily.

As a result, I led a discussion regarding the removal of the administrator's permissions, and the proposal passed.(link) Afterward, the deletion policy was revised once again on a large scale, including the introduction of DELPRO and PROD.(link) Some users who had been mobilized to oppose the desysop discussion were later blocked as well, and the situation on kowiki became peaceful afterward. I still think it is unfortunate that kowiki does not have an ArbCom, because the situation might have been resolved in a more orderly way if one had existed.

I believe the admin's actions clearly fall under section 3.2, "Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff." Some users argued that the admin used their authority to intimidate non-admin users, but tbh I don't agree with that interpretation, so I would not classify it as "Using one's position and reputation to intimidate others." Nevertheless I still think the actions were a clear violation of the UCoC.

However, in this case, only one administrator abused their tools, while other admins and users worked together to resolve the problem. Since the local community clearly demonstrated its ability to self-correct, I don't think this would constitute a systemic failure. These counter abuse actions reflect the expectations outlined in UCoC Section 2.2, which calls on community members to collaboratively take active responsibility for ensuring Wikimedia projects are safe and productive spaces. 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 18:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome answer, thanks! A09|(pogovor) 20:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]