Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Questions

Eligible voters can leave comments about the candidates and ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 (two) relevant questions per candidate (in total; i.e. all questions a candidate needs to answer are counted), and keep them as concise and relevant as possible. Please limit the length of comments to max. 250 words. Voters can post comments and questions now; candidates will be asked to engage with questions during the Question period. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

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

Integrity

Collapsed question. This question is a rephrased version of "Is it ethical to do unethical things". All answers are rephrased versions of "No, it isn't." Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 13:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were advising a Wikimedia user, do you believe it would be ethical to promise to help someone finish their work on a wiki and then fail to do so? If the answer is yes, would misrepresenting the truth about the matter to the public make the situation better? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd Bezenek (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a candidate, I believe integrity is paramount in all interactions within the Wikimedia community. Promising to help someone with their work on a wiki and then failing to fulfill that promise would indeed be unethical. Such actions undermine trust within the community and may harm the collaborative spirit that is essential to the success of Wikimedia projects. Misrepresenting the truth about failing to fulfill a promise does not make the situation better; in fact, it exacerbates the issue. Transparency and honesty are essential values within the Wikimedia community. If someone finds themselves unable to fulfill a commitment, it is important to communicate openly and honestly with the individual affected. This allows for understanding and potentially finding alternative solutions. In summary, promising assistance and then failing to deliver undermines integrity within the Wikimedia community. Misrepresenting the truth exacerbates the situation and goes against the values of transparency and honesty that are fundamental to the community's success. Sincerely, Patriot Kor (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Todd, the short answer is no. Generally, i don't give promises i cannot keep, but i can only speak for myself. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unethical to do so, but I will prefer not to promise helping someone finish their work on wiki, as I may not be able to keep those promises. If I have promised helping them finish their work, I will just try hard to do so, and inform them (and apologize) should new circumstances arise that render me unable to complete my promises. 1233 （T / C） 04:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia space is made up of volunteers who help to ensure free access to information and knowledge and so it would be unethical to promise someone that you will assist them to finish their work on a wiki. On the other hand, I will lend a helping hand to guide them on how best to manage their time to ensure they can finish the work they are doing on a wiki. Ugwulebo (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an interesting question. While I would not personally promise things like this, the question still lies in the U4C's communications with the community. It is important that the U4C does not release statements that contradict what is actually happening behind the scenes, nor should it privately make promises to people that it may not be able to fulfill. Ensuring that the U4C is as transparent as possible without misrepresenting the truth would be my goal. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I have time, I gladly help users and answer their questions, but I would not promise someone to complete their work. --Civvì (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of integrity. We are building encyclopedias, but are still volunteers. A promise is someone making an effort to help, so I would not hold that against them even if they fail. We must always Assume Good Faith and be honest with where we stand. Soni (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as possible, no to both points. It's generally better to underpromise and overdeliver than the other way round. Integrity is paramount to me, so I wouldn't tell lies to make the situation "look" better. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you are still committed to the task or not, tell the person why did you fail, what happened. It is not cool if you keep other people waiting on you completing your part of the work. I don't think misrepresenting the matter is productive, it's wrong. RXerself (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Identity

Do you think Wikimedia would benefit if everyone had to open their identity publicly? If not why not? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd Bezenek (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Todd Bezenek, requiring everyone involved in Wikimedia projects to publicly disclose their identities is a complex issue with both potential benefits and drawbacks. Here are some considerations:

Benefits: Publicly disclosing identities can increase accountability as individuals are more likely to take responsibility for their actions when their identity is known. Knowing who is contributing to Wikimedia projects can help build trust within the community, as users can better understand each other's backgrounds and motivations. Openly sharing identities can facilitate collaboration and communication among contributors, as it creates a more personal and transparent environment.

Drawbacks: Requiring public disclosure of identities may raise privacy concerns for contributors who prefer to maintain anonymity for personal or safety reasons.Some individuals may be hesitant to contribute if they are required to reveal their identities, particularly in regions where there are concerns about safety or political repercussions. Mandating pubclic disclosure of identities could potentially deter participation from marginalized or vulnerable groups who may face discrimination or harassment. Ultimately, the decision to require public disclosure of identities on Wikimedia projects would need to carefully balance the potential benefits with the privacy and inclusivity concerns of contributors. It may be more beneficial to focus on creating a culture of transparency, accountability, and mutual respect within the community, while also providing options for users to disclose their identities if they choose to do so voluntarily. Patriot Kor (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. As Patriot Kor stated, there are pros and cons. Besides the mentioned increased accountability and trust, there would also be a reduction in online disinhibition. But anonymity is for many wikipedians i know a non-negotiable condition for editing, meaning that they would rather stop contributing than to deanonymise themselves - for many different reasons like safety, privacy or editing while at work. And in certain sensitive topics or in certain political systems, anonymity gives freedom to edit topics one would not edit otherwise, for better or worse. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because of real threats, especially when Wikimedians can be jailed just solely because they edit Wikimedia projects in a way that meets community norms but are the opposite to their government's liking. I think there are enough evidences (i.e. Middle East and some nondemocratic states) to oppose doing it to everyone publicly. However, I do think that functionaries and people who will be able to access nonpublic information should reveal their identity to the Wikimedia Foundation, albeit in a private manner. Coming from a region where democratic backsliding is rite, it seems that this (open their identity publicly) may actually do more harm than good. 1233 （T / C） 03:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikimedia would benefit when identities of all contributors are public. A good number of contributors on the space do it out of desire to volunteer and the need to document information about their places, geography and trending issues. Sometimes this information can be very crude and sensible to some quarters in their locations.

When their identities are publicly displayed, it can lead to witch hunt of contributors and threat to life of contributors. Publicly displaying identities will on the long run lead to reduced contributions on the Wikimedia space and also persecution of contributors by governments and other bodies who are against free knowledge especially information on trending issues. Ugwulebo (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As 1233 mentioned above, requiring contributors to disclose their identities can lead to threats of editors' safety. As a movement of people coming from diverse backgrounds, we benefit from a safe environment where people can contribute without fear of being persecuted by an authoritarian government or from people acting maliciously with regards to your public identity. In terms of making content, anonymity reduces the stress one may feel when making edits. On the one hand, we might make people feel more accountable, but on the other, being bold is also one of the core Wikipedia policies. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine to leave the freedom to decide how much personal data a user wants to disclose. In some places, for some categories of users and for editors of some types of content, there are safety issues related to the disclosure of personal identity. --Civvì (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Other candidates have already mentioned real life concerns that would make this impossible to impose. Other than that, many of our pages are visited by millions of people daily. This unfortunately causes several editors yearly to come under harm just because someone disagreed with a page they wrote. Anonymity is a strong safety, and I would prefer strengthening how to protect our editors. Editors who prefer public identities can already do so. Soni (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a benefit to doing this. We are all humans; there is no reason why users must know all the personal details of each contributor. Put it other way: each user here is judged not on their identity, but their contributions to the wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Making contributors disclose their identities publicly may deter them from participating especially those belonging to certain vulnerable groups who are at risk of being discriminated, harassed or even harmed when they share information that contradicts some narratives or sources of power. Several contributors reside in areas under oppressive regimes and cultures where sharing sensitive materials can lead to persecution. I think ability to anonymously contribute provides a safe zone for freedom of speech that allows individuals to share knowledge without fear of victimization, and it has been the source of strength for marginalized voices as well as a necessary condition for making these global wiki what they are. No reason to do so. Borschts^Talk 07:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to live in a world where it would be safe for everyone to edit with their real name. Unfortunately I do not think that is a good idea in the world we live in now. We have seen people jailed for contributing to Wikipedias. Sometimes this has happened in countries where editing would have always been potentially dangerous. Sometimes this has happened because those countries politics have changed and something that was safe became dangerous. In all cases it is deeply upsetting to me. On English Wikipedia we regularly get people who regret using their name (or part of their name) in their username. I hope projects do more to protect editors from this danger which they may not know about. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big no. We have doxxing, threats, and imprisonments already in the current state where disclosure is not mandatory. We should be creating a safe environment to our editors. :RXerself (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has already been said here, I could just rephrase it. But I can describe my personal experience. I take photos for Wikipedia at political protests and have repeatedly experienced attempts at intimidation or threats of violence. Among other things, I was told to my face "We know you" - an allusion to so-called "enemy lists", which are known to be run by interested groups and which have already been uncovered in individual cases. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy is of the utmost importance. The U4C will just be drawn into a number of foreseeable systemic cases to deal with if we start opening everyone's identity publicly. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Experience in wiki conflict resolution

What experience do you have regarding our current ways of conflict resolution (e.g. Arbitration Committee, conflict resolution as an Administrator or community processes like Requests for comment)? --Johannnes89 (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannnes89, as a candidate, I have experience in conflict resolution within the Wikimedia community through various channels. Especially in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. I have been an active contributor to Wikimedia projects and have witnessed various conflicts arise within the community. Through my participation, I have gained insights into the dynamics of conflicts and the different approaches to resolving them. I am familiar with community processes such as Requests for Comment, where community members can initiate discussions to resolve disputes or address issues affecting Wikimedia projects. While not formally trained in mediation, I have engaged in informal mediation and facilitation efforts within the community to help resolve conflicts. This involves actively listening to all parties involved, identifying common ground, and facilitating discussions aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions. Although I may not have direct experience serving on an Arbitration Committee, I am aware of its role in resolving disputes that cant be resolved through other means within the Wikimedia community. I am well-versed in Wikimedia's policies and guidelines, including those related to conduct and conflict resolution. In summary, while I may not have formal experience serving on arbitration commitees or as an administrator, I have actively participated in conflict resolution efforts within the Wikimedia community through various channels. I am committed to promoting constructive dialogue, fostering understanding, and finding peaceful resolutions to conflicts in line with Wikimedia's values and principles. Patriot Kor (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being an arbcom member for almost ten years and an administrator, i have also completed four trainings in conflict management, and i am the main author of the article conflict in English and German. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have authored at least one meta RFC related to the Chinese Wikipedia, and had involvement in a few extra, especially on the Chinese Wikipedia cases whom I may author and/or have involvement in between 2018 and 2021. As stated in my candidate statement, I have also been working for improving the conflict resolution methods and mechanisms after 2021 in the Chinese Wikipedia.

My latest involvement will be related to the Arabic Wikipedia's shutdown event - I personally, though believe that they may have a reason to demonstrate the need for a ceasefire (sic: not mentioning how here), the lack of communication seems to be the culprit of all the issues and lengthy discussions by Wikimedians opposing such closure. Unfortunately, that discussion seems to have gone nowhere.

I do believe that the coordinating committee will act as a last line of defense of community-led conflict resolution mechanisms, and particularly in areas related to behavioural problems of individuals and/or groups of individuals. 1233 （T / C） 14:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have experience in conflict resolution through my interactions with my community members who have had issues in respect to conflict. Some time ago, there was conflict in my community in respect to spearheading projects and involving community members to get grants without properly informing them. The Community head in the User group addressed the issue using Wikimedia conflict resolution pattern and it was successful. Also, I have had to appeal for removal of a block when i started. My experiences with the admins and the response exposed me to best practises to resolving conflicts in the Wikimedia space.

I have also been involved in formal and informal ways of meditating conflicts in my community as a Hub leader, grant committee member and also a member of the community. All of these experiences have exposed me to the Wikimedia conflict resolution patterns. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly interacted with ArbCom on English Wikipedia through making a statement on a case, but most of my experience comes from resolving conflicts as an admin on enwiki. Most of it had been passive, through reading how things at en:WP:AN get handled, and seeing if my judgment matches the outcome. The important fact to me is that groups like the Arbitration Committee and the U4C should be a last resort in conflict resolution, and should not act unless no other venues are able to handle the conflict. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Wikipedia does not have an arbcom so I have no experience with that body, I have been an administrator since the early stages of the project when there were both less guidelines and less users but on the other hand conflicts were quite frequent and often pretty intense. I think I have used all steps of the conflict resolution process on itwiki many times. --Civvì (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, as en.wikibooks tends to be quiet in that area. I have however helped handle the odd conflict that does happen, such as this one when I wasn't even an admin, and on MediaWiki (such as when a user was making nonsensical translations in a certain language). Edit: I also passively read RFCs and en.wiki ArbCom cases to get some exposure, partially since the wikis I'm active at doesn't have such a system. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not as experienced in terms of having held positions myself. I follow my local wiki's Arbcom and Admin Noticeboards somewhat closely, and have commented on both in a few cases. I am now fairly well versed with the general policies and resolution processes there. I have been involved in Requests for Comments somewhat extensively, as they're the biggest ways to enact larger scale change on wiki. As I mentioned in my candidate statement, my involvement in two of them (Drafts namespace and Adminship reform) are what I'm most proud of. Soni (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have experience with lots of different kinds of conflict resolution. Before becoming an administrator I would offer third opinions and help to close Requests for Comments. I am proud that I have never had any close of mine overturned as a bad close. As an administrator I attempted to help editors with disputes big and small. As an arbitrator I have had to deal with many of the hardest conflicts English Wikipedia has. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most prominent experience I've got is explained here. Also, some important context is here, in the "Your userpage" section. I hope that's enough to be worthy of consideration. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki does not have an ArbCom yet, but I have extensive experience in facilitating community processes to reach resolutions or compromises. A significant part of my role involves dealing with "unwelcome editors," but my primary goal is to prevent such situations from escalating into cases of LTA. --Borschts^Talk 06:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking just based on my experience in Indonesian and Sundanese Wikipedia. We don't have an ArbCom, so a lot of disputes and concrens are posted in Administrator's noticeboard, RfC, or the categorised village pumps. The case I mentioned in my candidacy happened recently in October 2023 and it emphasised the most important thing we should do: communication. The facilitation of such should be first in conflicts among editors where personal safety is not at risk. We don't have much conflict in Sundanese Wikipedia but cross-wiki LTA problems come now and then. The way I know it is not ideal, usually via another administrator in the Indonesian (yes) Wikipedia who tells me that there was this LTA in wp.su who had done similarly in wp.id. Other cases I had to hit the Random Article button to find it first, before realising that the edits was from months ago. I think this is especially true for smaller wikis with less active editors and administrators. Bureaucrats and cross-wiki admins do help but there are still a few times that people slipped through the cracks so I wish there was a mechanism to involve local administrators more. RXerself (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

Collapsed question. Only eligible voters are allowed to ask questions --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To all candidates,

May I ask to all UCoC Wikipedia candidates, how you would react to any new creations on Wikimedia, incomplete ones, or unreliable ones, and what would you do. Whether you'd delete them, reorganize and sort them out, or be creative in another way. And please give your true opinions on vandalism in Wikimedia. Thanks. Colonelsnow (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonelsnow As a candidate, my reaction to new creations on Wikimedia would depend on the specific situation and I will provide guidance and support where needed. I would assess the reliability of the content and take appropriate action, which may include tagging for verification, initiating discussions, or proposing deletion if necessary. Vandalism undermines the integrity of Wikimedia projects. I would swiftly revert vandalism and, if necessary, take further actions such as warning or blocking the vandal to maintain the quality and credibility of the platform and will kindly inform. Patriot Kor (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all new attempts at creation should be taken on good faith unless proven otherwise. I believe strongly that vandalism, while necessary to maintain control of has become a catch all in some cases to block inconveniences from contributing to the foundation. Any new attempt at content creation or edits should be evaluated for the potential to improve, and new editors/ coders/ creators should be fostered into helpful members of projects to the extent that volunteers have the resources and time to do so. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on the rules of a project. For example, in the german language wikipedia, incompleteness is not a reason to delete as long as the article meets a minimum stub standard and relevance criteria. Unreliable ones are more problematic, as they require a lot of research by other users to verify the statements and their sources. Calmly addressing a low reliability in articles to the user who wrote them is a first step towards improvement of problematic behaviour. If the behaviour does not improve, the article could maybe be edited by me (depending on the topic) or it could receive quality assurance templates or the article can be discussed in wikiprojects or portals. Concerning vandalism strategies, Revert, block, ignore or addressing problematic behaviour and using escalating measures in reaction to escalating behaviour are strategies commonly used. Personally, i do not think ignoring makes trolling go away too well. --Ghilt (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For new creations - I will just treat most of them as good faith, unless there are clear evidence (i.e. track record of vandalism from user) against the assumption. I may leave it as for most new creations as no one is obliged to do anything, but I may step up to offer help if I have time (but again, I personally have no commitment on that) and ability.

For vandalism, it is a side product that comes from the success of Wikimedia projects. With a unique combination of low barrier and the high visibility, this attracts malign actors to act for their interest (i.e. vandalising articles, meddling with local community consensus, etc.) We can only deal with it only with our commitment and time, and with the support of tools, filters and other mechanisms that are designed to reduce or track vandalism. 1233 （T / C） 04:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing on Wikimedia space involves training and re-training to be skilled in its content creation. New creations on Wikimedia can sometimes come with errors in content, unreliable sources and sometimes vandalism of pages. My reaction to new creations will involve checking the experience and the contributions of the editor. If the editor is well experienced in the wiki, I will observe the new content that has been created to ensure it follows the laid down rules of neutrality and reliable sources. When these rules are not followed, I will caution the editor via the necessary channels.

When the user is cautioned and there are no visible positive improvements to the content, the user will be temporarily blocked to avoid more vandalism to Wikimedia pages. Vandalism is a major issue in the wiki space because it not only distorts information created but also leads to waste of the time of the editor who created the content.

To reduce vandalism, training and retraining should be a major topic in wiki communities. Also, organisers of events should ensure that newbies are well mentored and directed on how to go about contributing to the Wikimedia space. Also to reduce vandalism from experienced editors with conflict of interest and paid editors, there should be recruitment of more volunteer administrators to observe wiki pages to ensure that contributions follow the right process and caution will be given to defaulting editors.

To also reduce vandalism, pages of interest and trending topics should be locked to editors except editors that have displayed neutrality in their contributions on Wikimedia space. Once editors realize that pages with trending topics are restricted, it will reduce vandalism. Ugwulebo (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most important aspect of an encyclopedia to the majority of people is its content. This applies to other projects as well. I would feel happy when it is constructive and to improve the project. When the content does not seem to fit, deletion could be requested. Incomplete creations should not be deleted immediately, as there is value in saving the content for future edits, and the person may still be editing the incomplete creation. On that note though, I don't think this is very relevant to the role of U4C. Feel free to ask me a followup if you would like an answer more specific to U4C's job though :) 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and my opinion on vandalism: vandalism does not help the Wikimedia movement, and most of the times works against the purpose of the different projects. Our culture involves encouraging people to edit, and have made "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" the main slogan for the Wikipedias. This inevitably attracts people who want to attract attention by vandalism. On some levels, I think vandalism can also help introduce new people to the project, as I started contributing with anti-vandalism work. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am able to do it I would try to improve the content by adding sources or whatever is needed. Otherwise I would add the appropriate maintenance template. For a (speedy) deletion there are rules, there is no margin to be creative.
Vandalism is annoying because it takes away time and resources, but we have open projects that "anyone can edit" so a certain amount of vandalism is physiological, we can only try to find more effective ways to deal with it.--Civvì (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikimedia project has it's own standards for inclusion/deletion, and these rules are important to keep our projects useful. Vandalism (when it's clear cut) should be reverted and escalated accordingly. If any project allows vandalism for too long, it will become cluttered with pointless pages that no reader will find useful. WMF and communities have developed semi-automatic tools to both identify and revert vandalism, and to block the editors/IPs if necessary.

For new creations, there's a balance to be struck. We want new editors to learn our policies and practice better editing (How to add sources for Wikipedias, for example) but the overall project should also not be diluted. On English Wikipedia, I found Draft namespace to be a useful middle-ground; it allows pages to eventually get fixed but without the "main namespace" being cluttered. Overall, many editors will start with good faith but poor quality edits, so I will always recommend patience and helping them learn, regardless of if the pages get deleted.

This will not fully translate to all our projects (Commons or Wikidata, for example). But a general "patience with new contributors, but no giving up quality" principle will always be helpful. Soni (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic three policy of verifiability, original research, and NPOV should be developed across Wikipedia editions and promoted to prevent unreliable information. I don't think Wikimedia projects should be a place for unmarked incomplete information. For unintentional incompleteness like abandonment by editors, other editors should not be forced to finish what others have started and the project should not host half-finished discontinued contents in most cases. RXerself (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Question: how would a well-enforced UCoC promote the prime purpose of Wikimedia

In your opinion, how would a well-enforced UCoC promote the prime purpose of Wikimedia, which is to serve global readers with educational contents?--Dewa dipper 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that a UCoC is set out to solve is issues of harassment, intimidation, and toxic behavior in places where enforcement of conduct standards have been historically lacking. Enforcing UCoC fairly would help communities better tackle cases of misconduct and would positively affect the communities as a whole by reducing toxicity which improves productivity. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A well-enforced UCoC does not directly promote the purposes of Wikimedia. However, it does provide the necessary tools for creating a positive environment for contributing (i.e. one where vandalism and other disruptive toxic acts can be dealt with promptly (not eliminated)). UCoC sets out, compliments, and forms part of the Terms of Service, where it implicitly requires people to behave like how you do in real life

When these toxic behaviours are dealt with, promptly and soundly, events such as those in the Croatian Wikipedia and/or Chinese Wikipedia, where malign actors had effectively took control, would be able to be resolved without evolving into major problems that lead to news headlines. This helps Wikimedia projects to serve their goals, while keeping malign actors from pushing mis/disinformation and pushing narratives, both a direct contradiction to the values of, and a risk to the Wikimedia movement as a whole. 1233 （T / C） 14:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly, by providing an environment that allows people to want to be/stay/become a part of this project, maybe even as one's favourite hobby. The content created by us (which is for free and available almost everywhere with an internet connection) is the reason readers come here. --Ghilt (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to this is no different to that given in my statement. Wikimedia isn't only about the major wikis, and UCoC will help with wikis that are smaller - the end result is the same to the end-user, that is, to help these communities serve the main purpose of Wikimedia. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To have good content we need a large number of volunteers willing to spend their free time creating content and collaborating with each other. People are more likely to spend their free time in a pleasant and peaceful environment than in an environment where they encounter hostility or harassment. --Civvì (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prime purpose of these projects, for me, is the spread of free knowledge. We must have an environment where editors want to volunteer and the UCoC is a minimum set of expectations to try and create that environment. One thing I hope the U4C does is work on training to give editors skills to help them resolve disputes. Editors feeling confident with their dispute resolution skills should also help create a positive environment for people to want to volunteer. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really in my wheelhouse to determine a prime directive from an ambiguous set of constraints. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try not repeating takes I already agree with (UCoC can create better conditions for community collaboration) and talk about how I think this can help. I appreciate WMF but often find the WMF employees a bit 'out of touch' with the community. No group will ever be beloved, especially if you make controversial decisions. But there's still a culture difference between "the Wiki communities" and their openness, and the necessary 'opaqueness' added by a company. In cases like self governance, I think the former is a big improvement. The U4C steps into that role. I've said elsewhere that I would like to improve the community trust (in both WMF and UCoC). I think an effective U4C could help achieve that, giving us fair and transparent decision-making without losing community goodwill along the way. Soni (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A UCoC acts a policy document guiding the activities and coordination of members in a community. A well enforced UCoC will help to ensure uniformity, equal representation of people and also improve the ethics associated with Wikimedia foundation. The prime purpose of Wikimedia which is to ensure open access to information, knowledge representation and equal representation will be achieved when this document is made accessible to all members of the community and also members abide by it. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it can prevent unwanted interactions and direct discussions into more productive ways. The way editors should not fear, worry, or anxious to edit, which would make them do the mere edit and then we can read what they edit which we perhaps might not be able to had the editor already felt unsafe before they did the edit. You pave the road and make sure it is safe so people can pass not close them. RXerself (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of LLMs for community communications

Large language models, like ChatGPT, are now often used for many tasks across Wikimedia projects. Do you think it would be appropriate for an U4C member to use ChatGPT to craft their U4C communications, either public or internal, by asking ChatGPT to do so for them? MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it would be appropriate. There are multiple ways one can use large language models: If someone uses it to generate ideas or ways they can evaluate a situation, but not using it to communicate, we would not be able to know that AI use is involved, so we can't do anything about it. Even then, I don't believe that would be an appropriate use, as U4C is run by humans with their own perspectives and values, and usage of AI works against that. If someone uses it to respond to all communications, with little to none human input, then it would be very inappropriate, as we might as well just offer the LLM itself a seat instead of a user operating a LLM. (which is something we should never do either!) If someone uses it for translation, I would be cautious as LLMs often editorialize your writing and can output things that you did not want to output. (Machine translation is in my opinion more reliable) UCoC decisions are mostly ethical decisions, and using LLMs to make those decisions will run into a myriad of problems. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (only in very specific case and precondition met), and no.

For crafting U4C Communications:

No first. ChatGPT, or other LLMs, should never be used directly in output. This applies basically in nearly every situation. Depending on AI output without human intervention will just basically creates issues if the model is corrupted, or just in general not trained for the purpose.
However, they can be used in providing suggestions for communications. This is more into prompt engineering, but these tools can be used to make your communications be less aggressive, insert (machine-generated) sympathy, or provide general feedback to the communications (where you must already have one draft be fed into model for "improvement"). This should also not be a case where confidential data may be leaked (which may lead to NDAs being breached unintentionally).

For using these outputs, there should always be human intervention/supervision. 1233 （T / C） 12:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or in short, no for generating direct communication, yes for probably suggestions and refinements for communication drafts. 1233 （T / C） 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not for me, because of very impersonal answers. The texts of LLM are grammatically well written but too generic in content, in my opinion. To add all the necessary information to the LLM and to correct LLM hallucinations takes as much time as to write the text myself. --Ghilt (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly against use of ChatGPT / LLM / AI in the U4C, plus strictly aginst using such for writing the candidate statements (I suspect several candidates could have used such). Taylor 49 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikimedian, I am against ChatGPT usage in nearly all forms, and definitely all U4C communication. As someone well versed with computers, I am against ChatGPT currently because it adds a lot of words but removes all meaning. If an editor is uncomfortable with communicating in English, we should encourage them to switch to their native language. The UCoC charter allows for every language other than during decisions. Soni (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general no, and definitely not for communications. I suspect some U4C members may not be as well-versed in English and may want to use ChatGPT as a support tool (I've seen something like that happen at a different community); we should let such users know that perfection in English is not expected. Leaderboard (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in the public and internal communications of U4C it will be important to be clear and precise, the choice of words will be crucial. So far I found the texts created by those tools rather verbose and generic so my answer is no. --Civvì (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be OK for a U4C member to use a large language model to communicate with other U4C members. I am lucky to speak fluent English, but I think people who do not speak fluent English should also be able to be on the U4C. I do not know how much translation help will be available but look at this page - editors must answer in English even if they are not en-n or en-4/5. If a large language model can help a U4C write their ideas better I would be OK if they used it. I am against using a large language model when writing in public or in writing to someone not on the U4C for the reasons other candidates have explained. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internal communications within the committee would be fine, but opinions of the U4C must be crafted delicately by one of the voting members. Remember, Large Language Models can only regurgitate what has come before. The entire mission of the U4C is to be the final stop to address systemic issues that no other co-equal actors are able to address. Typing a prompt into Chat GPT to get the U4C's opinions would destroy committee legitimacy. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LLM models help to ease the burden of information generation and compilation but sadly its abuse is now the in-thing in the society. Using LLM models for Wikimedia task will not only kill the originality of contents but also lead to the spread of unverified information. It would not be appropriate for a member to adopt them during communications because they are bots that cannot be fully controlled and so communications will not be original and genuine. They also destroy originality of information thereby leading to lack of creativity on the sender's part. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct-related question

How do you decide what's appropriate conduct or not? For example, if a user refuses to use preferred pronouns after being repeatedly told by multiple different users to do so, what would you consider that to be?--BRP^ever 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we would be a group of people in the U4C, we would evaluate a situation by discussion in regards to the UCoC. By the global setup of the U4C, the U4C members may have different views and solutions on which we will collaborate to find a consensus. If that doesn't work out, depending on the situation, we will try to achieve a compromise. Personally, i would first ask the person to respect the pronouns or to not use pronouns as a first step with low escalation. Often, this approach works, because there is an unspoken arsenal of measures with increasing escalation waiting. If the answer is no, and also depending on my colleagues, we will have to see which step to take next. --Ghilt (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd answer the example first - this is definitely something that should place an at least one way interaction ban, and until at least the user is respected in the pronoun. If that may hurt the other user (i.e. religious reasons, etc.), then it may be best not to use pronouns at all, as a possible compromise. Back to the appropriate conduct, I think common sense matters. Ask yourself your immediate response if you are placed in this situation, and normally that will at least provide some insight on the particular issue. There will never be a golden rule but respect and empathy may be a suitable tool to decide if the conduct is appropriate or not. 1233 （T / C） 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated misgendering can be seen as harassment. This is outlined in "2.1 - Mutual Respect" part in the UCoC. For me personally, I'd like to get informed about the full context of the issue before making a decision. In the case of not using preferred pronouns, if there is no explanation given for this behavior, I would consider that to be inappropriate conduct. For me personally I don't think someone could actually give an appropriate explanation for not using the right pronouns of others when multiple people have already reminded them, but I would still like to see the full picture before making any enforcement decisions. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate conduct will always have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Our policies are broad enough that they cover many major cases (e.g. misgendering as 0xDeadbeef already pointed out) but it's important to do due diligence first (check what reason the editor has). We should have no leniency if someone repeatedly breaks rules though. I am not well versed in every culture, but I understand (they/them, xey/xem) are accepted alternatives just in case (say if someone is forgetful). It's more important for Wikimedian spaces to be harassment free. Soni (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this, and context becomes very important in this area. For your example, I would consider whether language or culture could be part of what we're seeing from that user - it could well be that the concept of preferred pronouns isn't quite a thing in the language that person is most familiar at. In other words, there is an upper-bound beyond which one could consider their conduct inappropriate; what that bound is cannot be determined in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language and culture of these users is going to be important. However, that is going to be context to think about not permission to ignore the identity of another user. A similar, but less emotional issue, I have noticed is when users whose usernames do not contain Latin characters (e.g. they are in Arabic or Japanese) contribute to projects with Latin characters. Some editors are OK with a Latin transliteration of their username while others are not OK with it or are not OK with how editors may abbreviate that transliteration. Ultimately it's important to me that editors feel respected and so if even if a pronoun or username are "unsupported" by a language we still need to find a way for those users to work on the same project. This is a good example where a diverse group of U4C members will help to reach better decisions. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can write as many guidelines as we want, but we will never be able to list all possible inappropriate behaviors and I don't even think we want to do that so we have to rely on common sense. If different users feel that a behavior is unpleasant or inappropriate, it is time to listen, try to understand and if necessary intervene. --Civvì (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider that a conduct issue for the Admins on that project to deal with. One user is not necessarily an issue for the U4C to deal with. Only if an entire project or significant sections of one was discriminating against someone's pronouns/gender would it be an issue for the U4C. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is appropriate conduct or vice versa can only be determined when there are guiding rules and principles on the subject matter. Where there is absence of guiding rules and principles on the use of pronouns, non-declaration of pronouns cannot be termed an appropriate conduct. If there is an existing document stating that pronouns must be used by users and a user flaunts it, that can be declared as an inappropriate conduct and the user is bound to face the consequences of their actions. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications

What do you think qualifies you for this role other than just meeting the basic criteria?--BRP^ever 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being an arbcom member for almost 10 years and being an administrator, i have so far completed four trainings in conflict analysis and management. Also, i am the main author of Conflict in english and german and i'm currently working as a non-staff wikipedian in a task force to revise the safe space policy of Wikimedia Germany for events that take place in real life. --Ghilt (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an administrator on English Wikipedia has taught me a lot in understanding how to handle conduct related issues through understanding what administrative actions are appropriate to prevent further disruption. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably think of many people in my wiki who would be better qualified than me. ~~But they are not currently standing here.~~ I have experience in a fairly wide set of areas, and am happy to learn more. I want all U4C members to have a deep understanding of our projects, and I can guarantee that. Soni (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor update, several qualified candidates from different wikis have since nominated themselves. I'd be content to serve if elected, but be happy if someone with Arbcoms or equivalent experience is elected instead. I prefer a more solid U4C over most considerations. Soni (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered this question in my statement - feel free to let me know if not (or you want more detail). Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with community resilience issues on wiki (specifically for the Chinese Wikipedia) for quite some time (even before the UCoC became a thing) - which can be demonstrated by this meta RFC as early as 2017, as a first attempt to escalate/bring this issue to global attention. I have also authored two separate opinions in 2019 and 2021 in Signpost, one explaining the situation in the Chinese Wikipedia (with some now globally-banned users trolling), and the other one explaining the tremendous safety risk that Chinese Wikipedia users would need to face when they speak up against the working groups of Wikimedians in Chinese Wikipedia. In the Fram case, I also tried rebute another now foundation-banned user's allegations against the Trust and Safety team by explaining how office actions work and their implications. Furthermore, I also authored and led the discussion for implementing SecurePoll into Chinese Wikipedia's admin elections, and facilitated discussions for on-wiki issues related to civility and (possibly abusive) questionable administrative tool use cases.--1233 （T / C） 13:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I discuss this on my candidate page, but I combine content editing experience, administrative experience, Arbitrator experience, and experience helping to write the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C charter. I also think that my personal qualities help to make me a good candidate for the U4C, including my commitment to be someone who does the work. Rather than repeating what I wrote on the candidate page, I'll stop here and link to that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In both communities where I am active, I and a few other users are nearly solely responsible for steering all issues towards peace. Several concrete facts attest to this. Unfortunately, however, I cannot identify other users among the candidates who, like me, consistently strive for peace and problem resolution within my communities. Additionally, I serve as a guide for an IT company. I possess significant experience in fostering peace and tranquility among employees. --Patriot Kor (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an administrator and bureaucrat for more than 12 years and have a pretty good view of online and offline activities. I was also a member of the UCoC drafting committee and had the opportunity to closely follow the creation of the enforcement guidelines. But I went into more detail in the application summary. --Civvì (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to have a better explanation of my qualifications than this section. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As i have stated in my candidate page, I have experience in coordinating and leading Wikimedia groups with users from different backgrounds and trainings. My experience comes through active participation in Wikimedia projects and also organizing projects. As a librarian, I have also been involved in the formulation of collection development policy document for my library which has enhanced collection developments and users' satisfaction. I was also part of the pioneer grant committee members for the Nigerian User group who helped to form guiding principles for fund disbursement and ensure the coordination and disbursement of funds for the Nigerian Community. Ugwulebo (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture shock

As a member of the U4C, you will be responsible for evaluating abuses of power and other systemic issues in projects that which you do not understand the language, policies, or culture of. How do you think your experience on Wikimedia has demonstrated your ability to empathize with other projects without making assumptions? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are the availability bias and the confirmation bias that cause assumptions as two prominent factors. Being human i am not free of assumptions, but i try to be conscious about not falling for the biases. Editing in different projects (i have written articles in de, en, fr and it so far) helps building a deeper understanding for cultural differences. --Ghilt (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hard one because I can't think of any concrete examples off the top of my head. I like to apply the principle of "not judging unless I have seen enough" both in real life and on-wiki. There are times where I disagreed with others about assumptions of editors as seen in en:Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 1#Block of ASmallMapleLeaf, where I disagreed with others over whether a sanction was necessary to prevent harm to the project. I generally take the conservative approach and try to completely analyze the full situation before coming to any conclusions. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my statement, I made a mistake a few years back where I made incorrect assumptions about how projects handle a certain issue. I regularly visit wikis in languages I don't understand, and try to see how their policies and related discussions differ from those I'm more familiar with (and see if I can apply them in my homewikis). Being passively active on Meta's Steward requests/Permissions and associated areas has also helped in this. Leaderboard (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In situations where I do not fully understand the language, policies, or culture, I make it a priority to seek guidance and expertise from those who know the context first. --Patriot Kor (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with other languages and cultures I try to do a lot of listening and asking of questions. I want to learn and want to understand and I have found doing that helpful. I also want to learn and understand the perspective of individuals. Some of the hardest things I've ever done as a Wikipedian has been to sanction other volunteers who have worked hard and who love the project as much as I do but who have violated policies enough that a sanction might need to happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During and after the drafting of UCoC, I had the opportunity to come into contact with volunteers from different projects around the world and listen to their particularities, difficulties and also their fears; I learned a lot about both the similarities and differences within the movement. I also believe that U4C should have the tools and resources available to be able to understand different languages and cultures; I would ask for them. --Civvì (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Functioning as the sole proto-member of the U4C, for better or worse, I went here, and I raised a systemic issue, which En Wiki Admins have been very gracious in solving. They have done an excellent job in the past few days. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thread you have linked does not demonstrate your ability to empathize with other projects without making assumptions, and in fact does the exact opposite. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't learn a valuable lesson in empathizing with co-equal actors until the next day. Look here, for the full context under "Your userpage". I would ask for grace and understanding of the intense pressure I was under, although I don't expect I'll receive any. I was under great stress on April 6, and I said En Wiki Admins have done a great job. Clearly, I wan't trying to brag about the situation. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatian Wikipedia case show how we can resolve local governance issues through global community support. I believe that the U4C should do things in a similar context. In understanding cultural context, I believe that no assumptions should be made. We should first establish facts, then rationale, before making a decision to defuse, deescalate, and resolve these issues. Communicating in offline events (e.g. Wikimania) also make me able to understand, show sympathy and support issues that a project is facing and that I may not have high involvement (and understanding) of. 1233 （T / C） 08:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I join a meetup offline, I am surprised by how different my "home wiki" is from many Wikimedia projects. My experiences with hackathons alongside other Indic community members made me learn how many assumptions I hold aren't universal (For some: how close knit the community can feel, how easy it is for a wiki to "die out" of no contributors, how hard it is to get "tech support" from WMF/community maintainers, how long critical issues can remain unsolved). In 2017, I'd advised for a WMF ad campaign in India, and hearing other community members' POV on simple things I take for granted (People know how to find my project, for one) was helpful. Soni (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of Consensus for the Code itself

The Foundation's news item on the Code of Conduct mentions "we are built around a model of shared power and consensus". What is your view on proceeding with the U4C process when there is an absence of consensus for the Code of Conduct itself?

The Foundation disregarded all objections that consensus was needed for the Code of Conduct. There have been objections that without consensus the entire process lacks legitimacy, lacks community buy-in, and lacks an opportunity for consensus to correct flaws in the Code. I'll try to avoid lengthy argument, and just I'll just say I think the Foundation is shooting itself in the foot again. I've seen the Foundation's lack of respect for legitimate process making opponents out of many of the exact people the Foundation needs as allies for this. Alsee (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak on the entire Charter with authority, but I will relate the question to the U4C. The Committee will split one co-equal token as I see it, and split it 16 ways. They will be co-equal actors with all other powerful actors under the Foundation's umbrella. Every token is propped up by two things from here on in, the Draft Charter (or local equivalent authorities) and legitimacy. If the U4C's first ruling after the election is an opinion issues which in itself has systemic bias, then other co-equal actors would need to smash the token. It would give the U4C zero legitimacy. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I think that UCoC is just an reinterpretation of section 4 of the terms of use (before it's addition of UCoC mentions). The rationale behind singling out this section is due to so many unfortunate events (online, offline, outside of wiki) that happened between 2013 and 2021. In my opinion, the UCoC is used to delegate some obligations that the Wikimedia Foundation must bear as a service/platform provider to the wider movement.

----

Now the long reply:

The presence of UCoC is due to so many unfortunate events that happened between 2013 and 2021 across at least two language versions, as stated by various statements by me on this page above, below, and in my candidate page. Actually, I would rather not have UCoC at all because there have been provisions in the Terms of Use, since 2012, to prohibit users engaging in harassing acts.

However, the ToS had actually been repeatedly violated by malign senior community members. One of them have even been offered full scholarship to Wikimania. Although the user had now been subsequently banned by the Wikimedia Foundation's CR&S team, this shows how complicated community governance issues can be, the inability for local communities to deal with it when it is too complicated, and the foundation's restricted ability to deal with them without community processes.

I do think that the current iteration does provide opportunities for consensus to correct flaws in the UCoC, and the current model (and iteration of UCoC and U4C) is designed to delegate legal obligations from the Wikimedia Foundation to community processes.

Although everyone hopes the movement is as free from external factors as possible (free from legal obligations), the Wikimedia Foundation operates as a legal entity in the United States and is required to fulfil legal obligations as mandated by US and international law.

I do not want events like the 2021 Trust & Safety bans, similar ones in 2022, or systematic abuses from one user that affected the Croatian Wikipedia from happening again. Apart from the last one, the first two should and could be handled without creating rifts in the greater Wikimedia Community. This is where I see the UCoC and U4C valuable (and thus why I would like to run as well).

UCoC and U4C, thus, should act as the intermediary between local community successfully resoles internal issues and the foundation directly interferes in local community decisions (as a service provider).

Furthermore, I believe that the UCoC should be amended wherever appropriately, though the principles should remain consistent - that we should respect others even if we don't agree, and U4C should not override local community governance structures - over time. 1233 （T / C） 07:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also never interfere with established working community processes, and I think this has been sufficiently addressed. --1233 （T / C） 09:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately if the board wants to pass a policy I think they can. But it's a huge ongoing mistake to not have sought consensus for the UCoC itself. As I note in my candidate statement that lack of consensus is the most important thing about the code that needs to change. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having community members on the U4C will help the community's voices be heard. I am cautiously optimistic about UCoC making a positive influence. While I have personally disagreed with some of WMF's decisions and actions in the past, establishing a U4C is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between 'legal' and (morally) 'legitimate'. The Board can legally do so. But it is imho unwise to ignore the interest of a major stakeholder - that the volunteers want to have a say in each step. Also, there should be a consistence between theory (community, consensus, subsidiarity principle) and practice. Let's see what can be improved. --Ghilt (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion mirrors 1233's for the most part. The criticism the OP makes boils down to the fact that the community did not have a say on whether the UCoC itself was required. I see that as similar to things such as WMF-initiated office actions - the community doesn't have a say on that either. In fact, I'd argue that the UCoC model is more collaborative than what we have now. Not only did the community have a say on ratification, the UCoC revisions were made by a group of volunteers as well, and the UCoC charter encourages community feedback (see section 4.3.1) - all of which are missing in the current system. I also hope that the UCoC will help improve transparency into sanctions and conduct actions, the process of which is quite opaque at the moment (see 1233's links for examples). Leaderboard (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirected question and answer

@Ghilt {{Citation needed}}. You claim "community ha[d] a say on ratification". I believe the timeline was as follows: The Foundation announced a UCoC was necessary, which you defend. Fine. However the Foundation then unilaterally appointed 9 members to the UCoC drafting committee, zero community selected representatives.^ref (The Foundation was represented by 4 staff, and the Foundation was further represented by its choice of 5 non-staff). The UCoC drafting process was then a farce, with people abandoning the process. The Community and Consensus were allowed zero power or control over the Code. The Community was assigned the role of futile freedom to comment. The Foundation then proceeded with guidelines on roles and pathways for conduct enforcement, with the UCoC explicitly excluded from debate. Enforcement Guidelines were indeed ratified on a second vote, without any ratified Code of Conduct to enforce. And now the Foundation rolls U4C forward, still with zero allowance for Community Consensus to approve or even amend anything in the Code of Conduct. Alsee (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, i guess my answer was unclear, sorry for that: i meant that the community's interest is to have a say. --Ghilt (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghilt your new post is very unclear. Any individual on the internet could post a comment on the talk page and be ignored. I hope(?) that's not what you mean by "the community's interest is to have a say"?

The UCoC was written by the Foundation's 9 appointed representatives, then approved by Board. The Code was never approved by the Community. The Foundation acknowledges absolutely no authority for Global Community Consensus to approve, reject, or alter any portion of the Code of Conduct. My question is your view on the Foundation simply rolling this process forwards when the Community was never allowed any say on the original Code of Conduct. Alsee (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: It seems like you intended to ping me but ended up pinging Ghilt. Do you still need me to respond to something? Leaderboard (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghilt: Oops, I accidentally pinged you when I intended to ping Leaderboard. You can disregard this discussion thread. Alsee (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard {{Citation needed}}. You claim "community ha[d] a say on ratification" (of the UCoC). I believe the timeline was as follows: The Foundation announced a UCoC was necessary, which you defend. Fine. However the Foundation then unilaterally appointed 9 members to the UCoC drafting committee, zero community selected representatives.^ref (The Foundation was represented by 4 staff, and the Foundation was further represented by its choice of 5 non-staff). The UCoC drafting process was then a farce, with people abandoning the process because they didn't want waste their time. The Foundation defined a dictatorial process with the Community assigned the role of powerless freedom to comment. The Foundation then proceeded with guidelines on roles and pathways for conduct enforcement, with the UCoC explicitly excluded from debate. Enforcement Guidelines were indeed ratified on a second vote, but staff simply ignored everyone saying the Code of Conduct itself needed community approval.

P.S. I've been away a bit, and I've first read U4C charter 4.3 per your comment. It once again demonstrates the Foundation's pathological refusal to respect or even acknowledge the existence of Community Consensus or Community Governance processes. The Community is banned from initiating any consensus regarding the UCoC, in that 4.3 doesn't even acknowledge the existence of such a thing. It assigns U4C sole authority to even draft a proposal. While it certainly could have been worse, I am going to be blunt and say the Foundation is being self-destructively stupid. If there is a problem, and the community opens an RFC to address that problem, and a thousand people respond with overwhelming approval, and the WMF says "nuh-uh, we don't acknowledge the existence of community consensus or existence of community governance processes, only the U4C is allowed to open a proposal", the WMF is just going to be eating another crisis. Alsee (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee:,

While I can see why you'd prefer community selection for this, and while that would have been ideal, it doesn't strike as particularly problematic what the WMF did, at least for the first iteration where there's a lot to be sketched. The community members it selected were all experienced and capable volunteers anyway.
"UCoC drafting process was then a farce, with people abandoning the process" - do you have evidence that it's a "farce"? I disagree with your assertion that the ability to comment is "powerless", without more context at least.
Looking at your second paragraph, I get the impression that your view is that the community has to dictate the U4C in every way. This I don't agree. While collaboration is indeed important, there are areas and aspects that are best handled by a smaller group of volunteers (and from what I've seen, en.wiki ArbCom works in pretty much the same way - correct me if I'm wrong). The example you've given is a bit too hypothetical in my view. Yes, in theory you're right in that the WMF could ignore community consensus - in theory. I doubt the WMF would do something like this in practice - and if something like this were to even remotely happen, it's not like the U4C members are powerless either.

Leaderboard (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding 1233's general take on this. While I have personal disagreements with some of U4C and the way it's been implemented, I also can't deny that it did go through community and consensus processes. We had a hand in drafting it, and we were given an up-down ratification vote on it. I do not think this is enough though, in that the UCoC and U4C could go further and more proactively engage with the community. I would like more trust being built from U4C and WMF side, as well as (for lack of a better word) better outreach to various Wikis. But I think removing all of U4C without establishing some more consensus would be one step forward, two steps backwards. Soni (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni I dispute your claim that that Code of Conduct "did go through community and consensus processes. We had a hand in drafting it, and we were given an up-down ratification vote on it. Please see my Citation Needed response to Leaderboard above. Alsee (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're expressing similar sentiments but from two different directions. When we had a vote to ratify UCoC, I leant No. I also share the concerns you have expressed. It's just that we fall in different buckets for "Did the UCoC go through consensus". I personally care more about the main through-line, "The community should have greater involvement and say". There is a lot of work for the U3C committee to do, and increasing community trust will be one of the bigger challenges. Soni (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni {{Failed Verification}}. You provided a link with the (perhaps accidentally) misleading title "we had a vote to ratify UCoC". That link in fact does not lead to a vote to ratify UCoC. Alsee (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I am mixing up the timelines a bit. I shall re-read your comment and refresh my memories of this process. That said, my general sentiment remains. Soni (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annual review and amendment

When should the first annual review and amendment process of the UCoC, EGs, and U4C Charter take place? Should this process also be used to establish community support for the UCoC text? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already indicated that I think the entire UCoC, not just amendments, should be put up for ratification at the first review. Incorporating that review, and mandatory community voting, was the best option that I and others who felt it a mistake not to have ratified the UCoC came up with when writing the enforcement guidelines. As to when it should happen, ideally it would have been January 2024. But we're not in an ideal world and so I think at this point the U4C needs to stand itself up. So realistically I'd aim for the ratification vote to happen in October, which means the review process would likely need to start in August/September. That would allow the annual review happening at the halfway mark of each U4C. The other option - and I don't like it because of how long it would be from now - is to unify U4C elections with amendments to the UCoC, UCoC EG, and U4C charter, so there would only have to be a single annual vote for UCoC related pieces. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I enormously appreciate your view that the UCoC be subject to community vote.

As I implied above in response to Ghilt and Leaderboard, I believe the absence of vote on the UCoC was merely one symptom of a fundamentally improper drafting process. (The Foundation's typical well intentioned but naive attempt to be participatory and inclusive, which ends up dysfunctional and exclusionary in practice.) I would not want the current version of the Code to attempt to cruise through on inertia in an isolated up-down vote, especially not under the Foundation's preferred SecurePoll process where voters largely arrive and vote without any chance to see or discuss the problems or alternatives raised by others. If we want to get this right, with active community support, we need a proper community empowered process where specific problems and amendments can be raised and debated. And of course any new version would be subject to Board review and approval before staff considered it to have any validity. Alsee (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how different we are saying things? There's some scenario where all the community votes on are proposed revisions at the annual review. This wouldn't address the initial mistake. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming a scenario with no vote until annual review, I'll give both an optimistic and a pessimistic answer.

Optimistically we have an unapproved Code until then, hopefully no conflicts until then, and resolve the issue then.

Pessimistically: Two problems. (1) We have an unapproved Code until then and the Framban conflict potentially re-explodes. (2) The community approves some changes, the Board declines those changes, functionally leaving us with a permanently unapproved Code. That leaves an ongoing risk of explosive conflict.

In regards to the pessimistic scenario I'd like to note that, as best I can tell, the Foundation either DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the lessons of the Framban incident or has actively rejected the lessons of that incident. I witnessed Trust&Safety issuing a threat against an individual based solely on staff disagreement with the social/political viewpoint of an individual's article edits. For the record I am not endorsing the viewpoint of that individual's article edits, I'll even say it shouldn't be hard to imagine what sorts of viewpoints might offend staff and tempt them to go after an individual. The issue is that the Foundation has absolutely no business abusing the ban process as a battlefield weapon to defend or advance Foundation-favored viewpoint in articles, no matter how they feel about those viewpoints. Alsee (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to unify U4C elections with amendments to the UCoC, UCoC EG, and U4C charter, so there would only have to be a single annual vote for UCoC related pieces.

@Barkeep49 To clarify, do you mean "One vote for ratification and amendments, then elections after N days/weeks?" It'd be hard to amend things like 'reserved' seats or home wiki limits without it being completed before the next elections. Soni (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions of the U4C should not be changeable by annual review. We can't have a system where the U4C addressed a systemic problem, and then whichever group dislikes the decision spams the annual review to unravel any decision of the U4C from the previous year. The co-equal token is useless if that's going to be the case. There would be no point in seating the U4C because the work would always be unraveled within a few months. There must be a way to establish lasting precedents or the whole idea of the U4C is doomed for failure. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would prefer to see U4C in action before suggesting a specific timeline for processes. Everything we have is newly built and not tested at all. Will we see lots of spurious cases and the system being gamed? Will the committee structure be stable enough to effectively judge cases? I have none of those answers yet, or quite a few more.

I do think all of UCoC should be be subject to a community review. I again cannot pre-commit to a specific format before knowing more but I personally liked enwiki's 2024 Vector RFC in terms of collecting actionable data on every possible concern, while still maintaining bigger picture evaluation for "Does the community approve of this as a whole". That last question is necessary for any review of UCoC, in my opinion. Soni (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first annual review of EG, the UCoC, and U4C Charter should take place at December this year, or whenever there's a (genuine) RFC concerning the execution of these documents in place opened on meta, whichever is earlier.

It is more or less (or lack thereof) related to experiences in enforcing the Code, though I hope there are just no enforcement at all (because people should behave, right?). UCoC is used to compliment and strengthen community guidelines on civility.

The text should be amended whenever appropriate, and should do so in a way similar to how we build and reach community consensus. I do think that each discussion will tread the goalpost for the UCoC (and the EC + U4C) to be more community centric.

1233 （T / C） 02:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should start at December - i.e. reviewing takes time. Accepting suggestions should be done as the UCoC is fluid in nature. 1233 （T / C） 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your general timeline while also maintaining that U4C opinions are not subject to annual review through the normal process. Overturning a U4C opinion should take a much higher percentage of the community than normal amendments. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be combined with the next year's election. While I understand Barkeep's concern in that it may be rather late, I concur with a couple of other candidates in that we need to give some time to see how well the UCoC works, and I think that shortening this period would leave us with an incomplete picture, especially given that there's still some administrative work to be done even after this initial election. Additionally, the fact that the official review may be after a year does not preclude the community from providing feedback at any time, as the UCoC charter (see section 4.3) requires a publicly available feedback page on Meta-Wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A half a year seems appropriate to start the review and ratification process (if possible) after having gained an overview. --Ghilt (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for each candidate

0xDeadbeef

You've created your account at enwiki where you hold sysop permissions, yet you chose zhwiki as your homewiki, why not enwiki? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there was some confusion when I read the instructions to select a home wiki. I did consider both enwiki and zhwiki as my homewikis as I contribute actively on both projects. I have more experience in creating and establishing consensus for policies at zhwiki, and there are many links to zhwiki discussions in my candidate statement, so I felt it was appropriate to put zhwiki. After reading this from an ElectCom member I realized that my reading is incorrect. Therefore I have changed my homewiki to enwiki, which should probably make more sense. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can a person who calls others "sick in the brain" and "shut up" on Chinese Wikipedia[1] ensure that UCoc's policy of "Mutual respect"、"Civility" are implemented?--日期20220626 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.. This is probably the meanest comment I have sent throughout my 3.5 years of being here. To be honest, I think "sick in the brain" is not really the best translation, as I don't think there is an English phrase that is analogous to this. Probably "braindead" would be a better translation? Anyways. There is some context that is missing from this question, so here we go.

I nominated a user on Chinese Wikipedia for the upcoming admin election
日期20220626 repeatedly questions my choice for the candidate, despite me giving my own reasons for why I believe the candidate is a net positive. There are other participants who at that discussion who suggested that this repeated questioning appears as an attack on my character.
When I tried to have a constructive discussion with another user, 日期20220626 felt the need to ask me for specific examples when I made a point about what I felt about the community at zhwiki. I didn't think specific examples were necessary for my point.
I asked 日期20220626 to not comment unless they have anything constructive to say, as I already got frustrated from the exchange.
Despite that, 日期20220626 replied to me again, resulting in my less-than-friendly response asking them to not reply again.

I think the problem with civility politics is that it only works when there is a way to resolve the issue in a civil manner. Chinese Wikipedia has a systemic problem of not responding to disruption appropriately. 日期20220626 has repeatedly engaged in disruption, and hounding me and the person I nominated as admin across different venues for discussion. This does not excuse me for behaving in an incivil manner, but I don't think focusing on these instances of strong language, while ignoring the larger systemic issues at hand is productive.

This is all I can come up for now, might followup later. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some further thoughts on this matter. For one, I don't think the U4C should appoint people who have never swore or been mean to others for once in their lives. I don't think it is realistic. And I don't think it helps. Mean or rude comments exist not just because the people behind them just want to be rude or mean, but it often comes from strong feelings they may have towards a person, a thing, or an opinion. If a person has always been nice, it would be hard for them to empathize with people who are not being nice, because they wouldn't understand why people would not be nice. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the behavior of the person you nominated is not in line with UCoc's policy. It doesn't matter if he scolds other Wikipedians once or twice. That person curses people almost every day, and has been banned many times on Chinese Wikipedia for insulting other people, so do you think it is in line with UCoc's policy for a person to curse Wikipedian editor every day? Today he called another Wikipedia editor was livestock（牲口） in Chinese Wikipedia telegram group again. Does the Wikimedia Foundation allow a Wikipedia editor to insult other Wikipedians on and off the site every day?日期20220626 (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the Wikimedia Foundation, nor will I ever be able to singlehandedly decide who is violating the UCoC and who is not. This only originates from a disagreement about whether the candidate I have nominated as admin is a net positive or not. If you would like to report the user for misconduct, you may do so at the appropriate venues. As this is becoming off-topic for my candidacy at U4C, anyone can feel free to contact me at my user talk if they would like to hear more from me about this particular issue in Chinese Wikipedia. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@日期20220626 牲口 maybe translated as "brute", instead of livestock. Just a head-up after I decided to retired from that community when I got noticed about such a thing. Lemonaka (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see wikt:en:牲口, synonym is wikt:en:畜生 which says "(derogatory) beast; bugger; contemptible person; brute; bastard". I have not ever used this word, nor have I ever endorsed the use of this word. So this is quite irrelevant here. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a notice to @日期20220626 about the accuracy of the translation. I've translated numerous sentences here and just a little bit more alerted then others about translation. Lemonaka (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1233

You've written in your candidate statement „a UCoC, in my opinion, should never happen. It is because of very egregious events that led to the UCoC being imposed“. Why shouldn't we have universally agreed behavioural rules as a minimum standard for all existing and all future WMF projects, just like we have other global policies? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Terms of Use, in 2012, have already governed and laid out a minimum standard for behaviour that should be universally agreed (see related section of the Terms of Use, in its 2012 version).

This is why I think the UCoC should technically never happen - not because we shouldn't have such rules, but rather we already have it and people should have actually followed the terms of use.

In fact, it is due to those events that happened between 2013 and 2021/22 across at least two different projects that led to the need for the creation of the UCoC.

Thus, I consider the UCoC are something that is here because of the need for the ToS to be reiterated because of these very unfortunate events, and my opposition is rather to those events (and the outcome, which I consider to be the UCoC).

Similar to some people's opposition to the establishment of law enforcements, it is not the opposition of order and/or support to criminals, bur rather people should actually behave - we already have laws telling one person not to do something already, and people should follow. It is due to people not following the laws that required the presence of law enforcements, and similarly, it is due to people not following civility rules in ToS that led to the UCoC be imposed/introduced through it's current form. 1233 （T / C） 17:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

787IYO

Akwugo

You've described three situations in the „personal experience“-section of your candidate statement. Can you elaborate how you addressed those situations and if you managed to resolve them? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49

Hello Barkeep (and thanks for applying). If elected, you will likely be among the more experienced members of U4C. If I counted correctly, it's very likely that some of the members in the Committee will have no administrative experience on Wikimedia projects. Based on anecdotal experience, a significant number of qualified people did not apply, for various reasons. Will this be a problem for a functioning U4C, and what's your plan for it? Soni (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this question. It's something I've given a lot of thought to and hope you will forgive a long response.
I am optimistic but concerned about this topic. I do worry that the committee will not have enough experience to truly handle the work ahead. So that is my concern. Optimistically, I do not think administrative experience is the only kind of experience that is useful. For instance, Waltercolor is not an administrator but I had the opportunity to work with her over the last three years and the work that she contributed made both the enforcement guidelines and charter better.
There are some very interesting candidates running. If elected I know that I will be able to learn from the other members of the committee based on the skills, knowledge, and experience they have. I also think I will have experience, skills, and knowledge that will be helpful for them. Hopefully, they will see me as someone they can learn from.
As for a "plan" I don't think it's for me alone to come up with a plan. Instead I can write about my commitment do the work and what kind of work I want to do. For instance, given my experience writing policy, procedures, and communications, I anticipate doing a lot of work with those areas if I am elected to the U4C. This has been work I've done on the English Arbitration Committee. This was true even when I was new and there were many other experienced arbs I was learning from. For me this is another example of how inexperience doesn't have to mean no ability.
Finally, I also have hope that the community will not vote in people just because they need to vote for "someone". Instead I hope the community will only vote "approve" for candidates who they think are qualified - however each person defines that word. I hope voters do this even if this means we have fewer than 16 members on the first U4C (I also will be voting for more than 8 candidates, the minimum quorum, so I don't think the U4C will be too small). In the end if I'm elected whoever else is elected would be my peer. We would all be equals (unless, I guess, if the committee were to decide to elect some kind of chair). If elected I would be excited to collaborate and work with them knowing that we both had the trust of the broader community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU

Borschts

Chinmayee Mishra

You selected Commons (the wiki you created your account at) as home wiki. However you could (by the number of edits) also declare wikisource as home wiki for the purposes of U4C. If you look through the list of candidates, you will find that most of them have wikipedia as home wiki, some have commons or wikidata (the two projects that support all other wikis), but only one has wikibooks as home wiki - and no other MW projects are represented by the eligable candidates. If you declared wikisource your home wiki you would actually double the visibility of the (especially with the general public outside of Wikimedians) lesser known Wikis in the election, and if you get elected, in the Committee (which in my opinion would strengthen the committee and show its diversity). Is there a specific reason for choosing Commons and not Wikisource? --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over my contributions and raising this question, C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) . Certainly I like all the WIkimedia Projects and appreciate the value they add to the knowledge movement, but Wikimedia Commons has my heart. The platform itself gives me "Home" feeling-peace and curiosity to learn-explore-support more. I value both commons and Wikisource equally and really enjoy contributing to both. I will continue here with your advice, and I feel it will be best way for the U4C purpose. Warmly, Chinmayee--Chinmayee Mishra (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a sensible explanation. Thanks. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chinmayee. You were involved in Wikiconference India 2023 (thank you for that). The South Asian communities are in a unique position of being both one community and a dozen different communities combined. Though I missed the conference myself for reasons, I was curious what the most challenging parts of being a T&S member there was. Can you talk about any specific learnings the team carried over from 2016 or realised in 2023? Soni (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civvì

You've described your work in the UCoC drafting committee, how do you judge the outcome, is there anything that could have been improved? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this question Johannnes89. It has happened over the years that I have found myself reading comments or answering questions about UCoC thinking that "uhm...that's not exactly what we meant". Whenever a policy needs further explanations and clarifications there is definitely room for improvement. After three years what I am really curious about are implementation, usefulness and “usability” of the document. Are the communities using this baseline to develop policies and how are they doing it? What challenges or difficulties do they face and why? Are there parts of the text which are unclear or confusing? Is it easy to adapt and use in their contexts? Are the examples useful? Do they need more or better ones? Do they need more detail (or perhaps less detail!)? When I read the Section 4.3. of the U4C Charter I think that this first committee will face an enormous (almost frightening) amount of work for the first review. Once the first review will be done then there will probably be a good and meaningful answer to your (and my!) questions. --Civvì (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.Suthorn

Danotech

DeBolsillo

Ghilt

Many members of our homewiki (dewiki) have voiced criticism when the UCOC and the enforcement guidelines have been created, fearing the U4C could have too much power to interfere with our well-established community conflict resolution procedures and our ArbCom's work. What do you think about those concerns? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some concerns were well-founded at the time, in my opinion. One part was voiced in the open letter, asking for more community participation, other issues were to add the right to be heard, the possibility for a revision/appeal, the implementation of best practices and as much transparency as possible in the later stage of a case. These points were addressed by me and others during the UCoC drafting process. The community ratification (vote) of the UCoC was also added later in the process. So i believe, there has been some improvement and there is still work to do, which will show more clearly in the future application of the UCoC. -- Ghilt (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim.ID

You wrote about some arwiki users being afraid to file a complaint against some admins, because your project doesn't have an ArbCom. Do you think more projects (including your homewiki) should try to establish an ArbCom? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely yes, we should have a ArbCom in ArWiki because it is an important issue and also among the movement recommendations. We had a ArbCom in 2007, but it was closed later due to problems related to the idea of permanent members and the necessity of their permanent presence, and the idea needed more discussions in order to develop more policies and rules to avoid to become an absolute authority or be misused, therefore there were many attempts to reactivate it, but all the discussions were long and did not yield results.

Over the past years, we have been using the idea of a "temporary arbitration committee" consisting of 5 or 7 trusted users to investigate cases and make a decisive decision. This is what has currently inspired us to create a policy of arbitration we will try to have it discussed and approved by the community during this year. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 05:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a lower bound though, because a reasonable line of thought would be that wikis too small won't gain from having an ArbCom. Describe that lower bound, and briefly sketch how a wiki in the lower quartile could run with an ArbCom. The reasoning for this question comes from wikis such as en.wikinews, which has an ArbCom that is pretty much never used. Leaderboard (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question, Can you explain more? Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically your reasoning was that "more projects" should have ArbCom. When do you think a wiki is too small to have such a committee? Leaderboard (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iwuala Lucy

As a member of the regional grant committee for SSA & MENA, what do you think about this criticism [2] of a project funded last year? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannnes89, Approaching from a neutral point of view, the exasperated undertone of the first critic is quite understandable -considering the fact that all attempt to get the attention of both the defaulters and WMF staff prove abortive. However, I also observed a change in the undertone immediately the responses started coming.

Categorically, I noticed a very diplomatic and intelligent approach in the resolution of the issues raised. The level of diplomacy and openness exhibited by the Program Officer helped quell the already heightened tempo and also set the pace for other WMF staff who also responded constructively and intelligently, leading to the resolution of the issues raised. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J ansari

JogiAsad

You've been an sdwiki admin for 6+ years, what do you think is your most important learning with regard to the UCoC? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Msechu

Leaderboard

Khunou S

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke081515

You have voiced concerns about lack of community involvement in the UCoC process as one of the initiators of the Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees. Do you feel those concerns have been sufficiently addressed by the WMF? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the community vote about the enforcement guidelines, the following improvement, and a community elected committee (U4C) to enforce that, those concers have been successfully addressed. Added to that, the fact that U4C is not a "regular" instance above the local communities if they have their own arbcoms etc. also improves the situation. As last step, it's important that the U4C acts responsible on it's power to change things in local projects in case of "systemic failure". If there is really a systemic failure it's needed to act, but this shouldn't be used easily, and all other options should be considered before. Otherwise, this will cost the committee a lot of trust and legitimation. That's also why I'd like to be elected to the committee, to make sure that these powers are used responsibly. Best regards, Luke 081515 11:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NANöR

Nskjnv

Ozzeon

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates, but you are mentioning off-wiki experience in conflict-resolution. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Kor

It was pointed out that your candidate page – as well as responses to the questions for all candidates – seem like they have been generated using some kind of artificial intelligence, which might be a reason why many statements read rather vague. Could you give concrete examples where you've been involved at Conduct Issues and Mediation, Movement Organizing or Policy Development in order to make sure this isn't just something an AI wrote? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Johannnes89, I understand that clarification is needed, but some of my answers are included [3] and I can assure you that the responses to the questions are not generated by artificial intelligence. However, I appreciate the opportunity to provide concrete examples of my involvement in Conduct Issues and Mediation, Movement Organization, and Policy Development to alleviate any doubts. Unfortunately, I cannot provide examples from the distant past because I may have forgotten some of them. Nonetheless, I will present some recent facts:

[4]),
[5]https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=7159061
[6]
[7]
[8].
Please translate all my opinion here: [9].
Furthermore, I proposed a peace meeting to revisit rules promoting peace and civility among users [10]
I encourage you to closely examine my behavior here: [11]

Also, once again, why should I need AI to generate my own ideas? Patriot Kor (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoplasmaKid

Ruby D-Brown

Why would you choose Twi Wikipedia as your home wiki, given that you only have 2 edits there? MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be addressed by the the election committee as 2 edits are insignificant at all. I saw the user qualifies from at least two projects (en and commons) and common sense dictates us to choose from either one. 1233 （T / C） 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits are not the only way to particpate in a project. Teaching others how to edit (in a specific project) is also a way to participate. But I would like to hear from the candidate. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Ruby's going to dignify it with a response. ELECTCOM already said "home wiki" declarations only need to pass sense check. She's the only candidate that speaks Twi and the only candidate with cultural connections to it. -- Sleyece (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for the candidate reasons, not the rules or the electcom position, which I was well aware of when writing the question. You are just adding noise here. MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is self evident. I already objected to too many candidates being forced into En Wiki as their "home" formally to the committee, and this is just the same "flood the zone" problem in reverse. You're asking a candidate with a unique cultural background why they would claim their culture. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you to not speak for other candidates. Every candidate has their own voice and getting other candidates answering questions for them is not the purpose of this page. MarioGom (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RXerself

Thank you for putting your candidature forward. In your candidate statement, you mentioned assistance in overcoming the red scare in Indonesian Wikipedia, June 2020. I assume that this is about en:Indonesian Wikipedia#Controversies. Could you give a bit more background about the conflict, and about your role in mitigating it? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is about that. The passage in that article mentioned about how it spilled over to social media and real life. But it didn't mention the vile doxxing and witch hunt that happened around it. At that time, I was not yet an administrator, and how I remember it was that I received news of doxxing of several editors and flamewar on Twitter. The way these people surprised me was on how sleuth they were. I cannot go into more details here, but if I can email you I think I can tell you more. RXerself (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I understand the sensitivity here, and the reason you cannot share more here. MarioGom (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleyece

Your candidate statement mentions your previous enwiki block [12] which you "don't want to happen to anyone else". How can your U4C membership (if elected) help prevent enwiki blocks, which you consider unjust, considering that the U4C doesn't have jurisdiction at enwiki except in instances of systemic failures per U4C charter? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannnes89 The U4C has no real powers except on questions of Charter and the decision is final on any project on which they determine a systemic failure to have occurred. Allow me to describe how I think this will have to work. I think the systemic failures must be addressed at the source, with the source when applicable. Look at my en talk page. It's clear that the Admin Katie was acting in good faith, but I still feel it's obvious that the block was a systemic failure. The charter states that the foundation must give global rights to the U4C to carry out its work and will appoint up to two foundation reps to be nonvoting members. I think how this will have to work is that the foundation should give Global Rollback permissions to all members except one elected member chosen by the foundation. That member should get global founder rights for opinions that check institutional power and be referred to as the Founder for their office. The Founder will choose a Second to take over their rights when they leave office by disqualification or term expiration. Votes should go as follows. The 14 rollbackers (excluding the Second and nonvoting rollbacker who also have those rights) vote on an issue, and, in the case of the tie, a subcommittee of four (Founder, Second, and two Foundation Nonvoters) meet separately and the Founder and Second must be resoundingly advised until they agree on a solution. If they can't agree, the vote is de facto a non systemic failure. If the 14 rollbackers vote that the Founder and Second have a common conflict of interest, then the tie will be broken by Jimmy Wales alone. The punishment for using global rights by committee members not in the course of carrying out U4C voted on opinions should be a non appealable global range ban from all foundation projects. They should be treated as sockpuppets for the remainder of their natural life. Emeritus members should get whatever rights Stewards get only on their home wiki for life (pending good behavior) and have their Global Rights revoked + be disqualified for life from any other committee except to run for election again to the U4C or a home committee or as otherwise allowed by the Charter. I think one nonvoting member should be Jimmy Wales for life or until incapacity, and if I was (as an example) elected and chosen as the first Founder, the Foundation would need to choose Admin Katie (if she's willing to accept), to be the first of the second nonvoters because she is connected to my source. From what I've seen, and since the Foundation is considering the parameters of U4C powers, I would Pre-Nominate Ruby D-Brown as the Second provided she is elected because of the cultural juxtaposition she would offer the subcommittee against mine. If she gets along with Katie, Jimmy Wales could approve that to be as good as source when I leave and Ruby became Founder so they could continue good work. I think being elected to any public office outside Wikimedia Foundation should be an immediate disqualification from office on the U4C, and members should be range checked daily and removed from the U4C as soon as they fail one range check. (ex. the range is any known political office's sphere of influence of more than three other Wikimedians.) So, the member is booted from office by procedural bots if they are a U.S. Representative the first range check after they are sworn into office, but if they're the mayor of a town with only three Wikimedians registered in some Montana wilderness, they pass the check. No one should be allowed to run for the U4C until the day they pass the next range check. I also think the U4C will need an official in person meeting place to debate and vote on the most sensitive matters placed in their care, and that location should be controlled in Right and in Deed by the foundation. In my example system, Katie would need global rollback rights to use at her sole discretion with or without an opinion of the U4C, but to be used at her general discretion to support the U4C or comply with co-equal committee orders that check the U4C and Jimmy Wales would need global Founder Rights to do the same in that same capacity. Upon death, abdication of duty or incapacity of Jimmy Wales the foundation would need to select a new nonvoting member to receive a lifetime position on the U4C and receive Global Founder rights with the exclusion of Katie (just per my example), any current member of the committee and any emeritus member of the committee. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Der-Wir-Ing@Risker@SpringProof@RamzyM (WMF)@Taylor 49@Nealmcb@Ajraddatz@Keegan (WMF)@KTC -- Sleyece (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also requesting that a permanent foundation lock be put on the entire charter including anything linked from the charter after becoming as much a part of it. (i.e., if the community votes on this example system to become a literal part of the charter, just write one sentence into the charter with a link to this section labeled "Sleyece" and permanently foundation lock the section. The charter exceptions would be a.) a future U4C vote determines it to systemically fail or b.) a future U4C organized charter vote amends the section. Any section of any content anywhere on any project should be subject to permanent treatment if conditions are met in kind. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you were issued a final warning by Ajraddatz on your talk page for making demands and being generally rude here on Meta (including accusing a steward of gaslighting and threatening them with T&S and Legal reports). You responded by saying "I'm a U4C candidate, and the closest thing to a U4C member seated. This "Final Warning" stuff is why; because the other candidates are afraid of retaliation or discrimination if they speak out without an official elected office." What do you mean by the first sentence, and what evidence do you have to support your claim about other candidates? Giraffer (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was generalizing, but I grabbed an entire Co-Equal token (as in ELECTCOM has a token; Meta Admins share one and EN Wiki Admins share one etc). I held on for a week until it was taken away on April 7. I don't think any other candidate is going to do anything close to that, nor should they; I've learned the potential for one person to hold a whole token is a systemic issue the U4C will have to deal with first thing. The only two other individuals who have ever held a full token before me, as far as I know, are Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. The two of them gave up their power long before the amount of Co-Equal actors to negotiate with was this voluminous. I may lose the election, but no one else is going to show with words what I've shown through action. I saw an immediate need to do the work of the U4C, and I just went for it. It drove me to a mental breakdown by April 6 for the record, but I managed to wield that power with only Extended Confirmed Rights on En Wiki as a defense, so basically no protection, and I avoided an indefinite meta-block. I feel like that should say something about me, but I don't know what. I would like to think it shows that I understood the assignment, and I know what the U4C is meant to be. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates page says you are a community-at-large candidate. Your own candidate pages says North-America or community-at-large. Which one is correct? --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates who started out as community-at-large apparently can't have the candidate's page updated, which seems like a mistake in the code. I am a candidate at this time for both North America and community-at-large (per rules change). -- Sleyece (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can update the candidates' page, as it's not unlocked (and there's no mistake in the code). I have gone ahead and updated it for you. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating it for me. The code is set to auto-update the candidate page when a candidate fills out the form, but it's not actually clear in the rules if candidates are supposed to edit the candidate page. When I had done so previously, I was reverted and scolded. All the best! -- Sleyece (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "code" is not set to auto-update, there's no mechanism to do that. When you last did it, you changed the preload box instead of adding yourself to the table. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was too nervous to try anything else. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this co-equal token you keep referring to (in absence of anyone else referring to such a concept) and can you point to such a concept documented as part of the U4C? Why do you believe you had any authority to hold "the newly minted token of the U4C" (your words) between March 31-April 7? You refer to being a proto-member of the U4C repeatedly in various places, with authority to act on behalf of the U4C. Why do you believe this was a legitimate claim to make? Ferret (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.1 and 1.2 of the U4C Charter were in effect as soon as the Draft Charter passed the vote. Nothing in the charter prevented a U4C candidate from acting on those. The token I'm referring to is the totality of a co-equal power. As in, the U4C will split a token 16 ways. En Wiki Admins split a token more ways than that. ELECTCOM splits it fewer ways. Every actor with a piece of a token can be a co-equal actor; I'm conceptualizing the interplay of co-equal actions. Legal has emailed me and said, in effect, that I activated 4.2.1 by opening Ticket 76757; so, only a seated U4C can use 1.1 or 1.2 from this point. I'm coining terms to describe what I did; it's not so much "authority" as in global rights. I'm more describing a symbol of the U4C's collected power and making a token concept. Other than those three sections, the rest of the Draft Charter only applies to ELECTCOM and the Building Committee until the end of the first election. That's why I believe my claims are legitimate in any case. If I had to simplify the answer I would just say my actions were within the scope of the U4C, and the rest of the charter is not until the first election is over. Some will say that there is no action that I can or should take because the U4C doesn't "exist" yet, but that's only semantics. If the charter is active, and the systemic problem exists as a matter of common sense, then my actions were within the scope of 1.1 and 1.2; obviously I leave good work to other co-equal actors from this point. I no longer have a token. Please indulge my framing for the sake of hearing me out. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the entire token concept is simply one you have made up to describe your personal vision on how various bodies within the movement interact. You are also saying that merely by putting yourself forward as a candidate, you believe you gained authority and power to act on behalf of U4C within the projects, unelected and unappointed (as per 1.3). I'd like you to express that you understand that this was completely invalid. U4C 1.1 and U4C 1.2 being in effect granted you nothing, because you are not on the U4C. You have no authority to act on behalf of 4.2.1, and additionally, if you had, you would have been violating the jurisdiction. Do you understand this? Ferret (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Amugi

Are you a regional or community-at-large candidate? What is your home wiki? --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpringProof

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soni

Superpes15

How do you think your experience as a steward can enrich the U4C? --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johannnes89: and thanks for your question. As I said in my statement, I think that my experience, focused on a cross-wiki vision, can support a team that needs to work globally. Being a steward I have already dealt with dispute resolution and policy issues, and I have been able to know and understand the variety of thoughts on projects. I believe that this experience has meant that I can evaluate various situations with ever greater awareness. I also believe that I could act as a point of reference between the stewards and the U4C also for the purpose of better coordination. I think that a diversified U4C, made up of functioneers with different roles (a bit like what happens in the OC), allows different experiences to be combined in order to improve the management and decision-making processes of the committee. Thanks again! Superpes15 (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49

You've been involved in a long-term conflict at eowiktionary which lead to you being blocked multiple times [13] by the only other administrator and in return blocking them [14], which got both of you desysopped [15]. As mentioned in your candidate statement you've tried to get help from the global community and the stewards multiple times (e.g. [16][17][18][19][20][21]) – as the conflict is still ongoing [22], this will likely end up at the U4C.

How would you act if you were elected and the U4C were to deal with this case? And what to you think about criticism of your actions in this conflict (e.g. [23][24][25][26][27][28]), especially regarding lack of civility? --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those questions. If I was elected into the U4C and the case "eo wiktionary" happened to land there, I obviously would not touch it due to conflict of interest. As to the complaints about lack of civility from my side, analysis of the discussions will reveal that incivility from my side was substantially less than incivility from the other part, ongoing during too long time, without any punishment or even slightest criticism. About being repeatedly blocked on eo wiktionary, the responsible user Pablo_Escobar is permanently blocked on es wiktionary, and was repeatedly blocked on de wiktionary too, for disruptive editing before ariving to eo wiktionary and blocking me. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is eowiktioniary? Todd Bezenek (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

eowiktionary -> eo.wiktionary.org, the project where Taylor 49 has done most of their contributions [29]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eo is Esperanto Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 16:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Interesting. Esperanto. DWI. Now it is GroqCloud(tm). I worked at MIPS before it became "Esperanto" then "Groq". I was the third computer architect at the company:

John H. -> R. T. who worked for Susan Eggers at UW/DEC -> Todd B.

I'm only trying to help. If you do NOT need help, I cannot help you.

Let me know if I can do anything.

-Todd B Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On ~~his~~ user page on svwp he summaries ~~his~~ status on the projects he is active on sv:Användare:Taylor 49, the issue on svwp w was a minor one (blocking not discussed), it was about one civility issue (naming counterpart "dagisbarn" (preschoolchild)) (sv:Användardiskussion:Taylor_49/arkiv#Etikett). Yger (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yger: Sorry for editing your text ... I am not male. Indeed on sv wikipedia I was blocked at one time, nobody knows why, maybe even by mistake. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking was a technical mistake, as is clearly visible in the block log https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Blockera/Taylor_49 And I am sorry to have used He/his Yger (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiputini

Ugwulebo

Judging by your global edit count you are one of the less experienced candidates. What do you think makes you unique as a U4C candidate with regard to the U4C's future tasks? --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U4C is a set of principles guiding behaviour of members in the wiki space and this policy applies to everyone who has contributed as an organizer, staff, volunteer or editor on the wiki space. As long as the individual is active in the wiki space, this policy is binding on them.

I am a unique candidate for this position because I have experience working in the wiki space as a member of an active Wikimedia group, a grant committee member, an organiser, a contributor to global and local campaign, and also as a community leader. In these positions, i have been exposed to issues of community members ranging from conflict of interest, suppressing of voices, teamwork challenges and also meeting project deadlines. In these roles, i have interacted and mentored diverse users from different tribes who have grown to be experienced and active contributors.

My experience in ensuring that community issues relating to Wikimedia friendly spaces, ethics of contribution and coordination in Wikimedia and also general uniformity and mentoring of newbies will help me to lend my voice to developing a global document for the wiki space that will be accepted by contributors from diverse groups and locations. Ugwulebo (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ugwulebo, I find your answer to the misgendering question a bit confusing.

Where there is absence of guiding rules and principles on the use of pronouns, non-declaration of pronouns cannot be termed an appropriate conduct. If there is an existing document stating that pronouns must be used by users and a user flaunts it, that can be declared as an inappropriate conduct and the user is bound to face the consequences of their actions.

The U4C will be enforcing the UCoC. Section 2.1 of UCoC states People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns;. Do you not consider this an "existing document"? Or do you interpret the section differently?

More generally, how specific do you expect "guiding rules and principles" to be? If the UCoC didn't explicitly specify gender and pronouns, would you be against enforcing Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves for misgendering? I find myself a bit confused when you consider "guiding rules" existing or not.

Soni (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volstand

Ybsen lucero