Jump to content

User:SHB2000/U4C guide 2025

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

A few things:

  • This guide aims to summarise all relevant info about U4C candidates into a singular page.
  • I aim to be as accurate as possible, but I am human and may have missed something along the way. If I have, feel free to let me on my talk page or via email (and feel free to make minor edits/fixes to this guide, provided you're not a candidate).
  • See #TLDR for this table in a summarised format.
  • Some of this is subjective – particularly the severity of the red flags. Use your judgment to determine what matters to you.
  • Answers do not need to be perfect and I am in no position to judge how "correct" they are. What I do look at, however, are how the candidate responds and if there are any serious flaws with the answer (e.g., something so blatantly wrong).
  • N/A can either mean I've yet to look at them or I am indecisive.
Incumbent U4C members
Username Registered date (YY-MM) Perms Answers Red flags Performance during past year
Barkeep49 2005-06 A, B, CU, OS Generally quite satisfactory None Generally quite satisfied, which should come off as no surprise given Barkeep's enwiki experience.
Civvì 2008-04 A, B Generally quite satisfactory; I'll admit some of them are very succinct but still generally what I expect. None Generally quite satisfied; I very much appreciate Civvi being one of the more public facing U4C members and generally being quite understanding of simple human nature.
Luke081515 2013-05 None [1][2] Answers are generally what is expected. None Somewhat poor (at least in public) – in most instances I have yet to see Luke add anything meaningful to U4C cases, only simple agreement – sometimes I've even noticed simple agreement after a case had escalated further. I am personally not supporting, but I would like to see Luke be more proactive in public were they to secure a second term. However, I'm told that they do a large amount of work internally.
Non-incumbent candidates
Username Registered date (YY-MM) Perms Answers Red flags Other important things of note
Azogbonon 2019-01 None Did not answer any questions.

BRPever 2015-12 A, B, CU, GR, GS, S Generally answers questions to the point, which is what's expected for a U4C candidate. None
Czeus25 Masele 2016-10 A Did not answer any questions.
  • If this U4C case is passed, it would mean the candidate is topic banned from any LGBTQ+-related topic for being a swwiki sysop. This is less than ideal for a U4C candidate, but I also do not see anything in the case specifically related to Czeus25 Masele.
  • Previously blocked for 1 year for vandalism.
Denis Barthel[3] 2008-03 TA[4], A Poor response to Q6. U4C is supposed to handle cases nobody else is willing to take; doing nothing will not help.
  • If elected, this would make Denis the third dewiki ArbCom member to be a U4C member after Ghilt and Luke. This is a serious COI issue for a committee that consists of 8–10 members (meaning 30–38% of the committee would be dewiki ArbCom/ex-ArbCom members), which may indirectly affect U4C's decision making, especially for cases relating to systemic failures. It was precisely why the (now abolished) home wiki rule existed in the first place.
IQR 2016-09 None Did not answer any questions.

Iwuala Lucy 2020-02 None Subpar would be a bit of an understatement. While I do recognise I was quite harsh with my question, the responses regarding the use of AI feel awfully vague (until a further clarification) – and clarity is critical when handling complex cases. The response to Cactus' question was long and circuitous for what could be said in 2 sentences (bringing back my earlier point about the lack of clarity).

J ansari 2016-09 GR Did not answer any questions.

King ChristLike 2020-10 A(SW)[6] I'm quite pleased that the candidate is able to take accountability for their actions (including the failed RfA on Wikidata + Q1), but it's still not entirely clear if they quite understand the scope of U4C judging by their answers, with their answer to Q3 reaffirming this.
  • Candidate statement potentially AI written – a gptzero.me result yields a 42% probability; this exceeds the threshold that most educational institutes often deem acceptable to ignore.
  • Cross-wiki copyright violations within the last 12 months.
  • Failed Wikidata RfA – was quite blatantly obvious they had no idea of the perms they were requesting.
Leaderboard[7] 2013-11 A, A(SW), GAFH Generally quite solid and what I expected. It just happens to be an unfortunate result of using SecurePoll that we'll never truly know the full oppose reasons behind a candidate. No major "red flags" per se, but the statement is quite dry; I mildly wished that it had a bit more enthusiasm to it and not just written in a tone to fill vacant seats.

Mohammed Qays 2022-06 A Answers are generally what is expected.

ProtoplasmaKid 2011-05 A, B[8] Did not answer the questions for all candidates; very much a repeat of the past 2 elections. Individual questions poorly answered.

R1F4T 2023-09 TS N/A None
Shushugah 2015-05 None Answers are generally what is expected. None
Soni 2014-02 None Answered them sufficiently, but was late due to IRL matters. None

Uncle Bash007 2019-10 A(SW) Answers are generally what is expected. None
Vikram maingi 2013-04 None N/A None
Zakaria Tunsung 2023-02 TS Only answered 1 question (for all candidates); did not answer the rest.
  • Candidate statement very barebones; no thorough explanation of what the candidate wants to achieve. There is also no indication the candidate is even aware of the purpose of U4C.
Боки 2018-09 CU[9] Answer to Q4 was not "brief and simple" as instructed; answer to Tiputini's question very poor including AI-generated text. An improvement from U4C24(SE), but still a not yet.

TLDR
  • Azogbonon – no (copyright violations/AI-generated statement + 2 failed nominations)
  • Barkeep49 – yes
  • BRPever – yes
  • Civvi – yes
  • Czeus25 Masele – hard no (vandalism block, swwiki topic ban)
  • Denis Barthel – no (poor response to questions; if elected, this would result in 3 dewiki ArbCom/ex-ArbCom members)
  • IQR – hard no (limited experience, no perms anywhere)
  • Iwuala Lucy – hard no (poor responses to questions, no perms anywhere)
  • J ansari – no (limited experience, poor track record with global rename tools)
  • King ChristLike – no (copyright violations, answers less than ideal, no sysop experience)
  • Leaderboard – maybe, leaning yes (two previous failed runs + failed SE25)
  • Luke081515 – maybe (has the experience, but more activity in public would be nice)
  • Mohammed Qays – neutral (due to past enwiki block but has sysop experience)
  • ProtoplasmaKid – hard no (refusal to respect Meta-Wiki practices, unacceptable accusations, 2 failed nominations)
  • R1F4T – no (account too new, lack of advanced perms)
  • Shushugah – no (lack of advanced perms)
  • Soni – no (lack of advanced perms)
  • Uncle Bash007 – maybe (only has small wiki sysop)
  • Vikram maingi – no (lack of advanced perms)
  • Zakaria Tunsung – hard no (account too new, poor candidate statement, lack of advanced perms)
  • Боки – hard no (poor responses to questions including the use of AI + lack of sysop + failed U4C24(SE))

Key

[edit]

Colour codes

[edit]

Overall

[edit]
  • Green = all fields are green or blank with no previously failed U4C candidacies under 55%.
  • Amber can either mean:
    • At least 1 column is amber;
    • Previous failed candidacies;
    • Minor issues.
  • Red can either mean:
    • No advanced perms on any wiki;
    • Has advanced perms, but the red flags are too serious or too recent to ignore;
    • Did not answer the questions/answered them very poorly before the voting period started (this includes only answering one or two questions or not answering questions for all candidates).

Registered dates

[edit]
  • Green denotes during or before June 2022.
  • Amber denotes between July 2022 and December 2022.
  • Red denotes anything during or after January 2023.

All dates are inclusive.

Permissions column

[edit]
  • No advanced permissions by default will be marked as red.
  • Small-wiki admin (any wiki with 10 or fewer sysops) and any other advanced perms that indicate trust but may not necessarily give experience that U4C undertakes, including, but not limited to, conflict resolution, assessing consensus or extensive collaboration, will be marked as amber.
  • Medium-sized wiki admin or large wiki admin, small-wiki admin coupled with other non-relevant advanced perms (such as CU, OS, GR or GAFH), global sysop or steward will be marked as green.

Permissions

[edit]
  • A = sysop
  • A(SW) = sysop of a small wiki (fewer than 10 admins)
  • B = bureaucrat
  • CU = checkuser
  • GAFH = global abuse filter helper
  • GR = global rollbacker
  • GS = global sysop
  • OS = oversighter
  • S = steward
  • TA = temporary sysop
  • TS = test sysop (on Incubator)
  • None = no advanced perms.

Italics indicate former permissions.

See also

[edit]

Previous results

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ↑ this excludes Meta sysop due to being a member of the U4C, and test2wiki
  2. ↑ Notably worth mentioning that Luke was a part of dewiki ArbCom
  3. ↑ see red flag table for why
  4. ↑ sysop expires Dec 2025
  5. ↑ though candidate claims otherwise
  6. ↑ sysop nomination on igwiki only passed on June 2, 2025
  7. ↑ marked amber due to failed previous candidacies, including SE25; however, this is significantly more "leaning yes" than many of the other amber candidates
  8. ↑ worth noting that bureaucrats on es projects don't mean much since they're often assigned together; it should be treated simply as an extension of admin
  9. ↑ CU is being marked amber; while it does require a higher level of trust, CU without the sysop bit means no experience in conflict resolution, assessing consensus, and many other processes U4C undertakes that sysops do on a smaller scale
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SHB2000/U4C_guide_2025&oldid=28842571"