Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/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
- Q1: An insufficient number of candidates were elected in the last election. The U4C is the organizer of this election. As a future member of the U4C, what would you change about the U4C election process so that this situation does not repeat itself? (Presentation, access conditions, etc.) Nouill (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it also depends on individuals who voted as I see there were sufficient candidates on initial election from all regions, but some regional candidates didn't get enough support, so conducting election for specific regions separately could be useful and there is need for more outreach to increase awareness in respective regions from local charter and user group. ~aanzx ✉ © 04:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the last election, we had a sufficient number of candidates from all regions, but some didn't receive enough votes. Therefore, I propose changing the qualification criteria from “The candidate must have 60% or higher of votes as calculated by support/(support + oppose)” to “The candidate must have 50% or higher of votes as calculated by support/(support + oppose).” or we could consider implementing another voting method that is not so complicated. Also, extending the campaign duration would allow candidates more time to reach out to voters and present their platforms effectively. Dera xoxo (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what I would want to change at this point - after the last election, I was concerned that the complexity of the composition of the committee was possibly discouraging experienced/qualified people from running, but seeing the candidate field this election I am not sure anymore. My personal instincts would still be to reduce some of that complexity - cut a few seats from the committee, relax the homewiki requirements, maybe rework the regional seats model to have a few reserved seats for those from underserved areas rather than a dedicated seat for each region, etc. But ultimately I don't think that the U4C should decide on this alone; I think this should be a conversation with the community before the next election, once we have had time to review and reflect on the results of this election, and my objective in such a discussion would be to encourage the sharing of views and to implement what the community decides. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per Ajraddatz. Trying to achieve diversity is an important goal, but if it leads to a situation where the terms perhaps are not understood at first reading by the average user, it's perhaps too complex and doesn't reach the required attention. I'd be in favor of a slightly reduced complexity. I have no specific suggestion at this time. Krd 09:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the first election is a bit too complex and was mandated to elect 16 members, plus the home wiki rule should only apply to cal not regional seats. This is the first time problem. Another problem that seems to have fixed is for how many questions to candidates are just not sorted, which is fixed in this case. But a long review is definitely needed as there are issues that have been discovered in this (and last) election. 1233 （T / C） 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- In order to prevent this type of occurrence, I would suggest a different approach in the voting system where voters are not just limited to voting the people they may know but also, those they know not but can access their activities and contributions on their individual User pages. This is because, the Wikimedia ecosystem is quite a large one made up of people from different regions, so structuring the voting system in a way that voters can vote only people they know is not quite encouraging. Secondly, I would suggest an equity approach rather than equality approach. The equality approach may not be suitable in this system judging from the fact that there are more regions that are more vast both in population and contribution and are at advantage of getting more eligible voters compared to the other regions. Thirdly, equity approach could be adopted whereby, a lesser percentage for specific candidates (who may fall within the scope of Upcoming but not fully advanced Wikimedians or Candidates from a specific region with lesser advantage) would be used to measure a candidate's success. This would give space for equitable representation on the UCoC seat. Finally, I would suggest more publicity - the just concluded election was not well publicized enough. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I've highlighted in one of my answers to the original election (and this is just my personal opinion), I would get rid of the regional seats (+ the homewiki rule) and make all community-at-large. This is because while I appreciate diversity, I consider the current system rather short-sighted and it wouldn't be good for the community or the member for someone to be called as a "diversity member", nor for them to have an easier/harder time getting elected just because of where they come from, or the homewiki they've selected (both of which have a degree of self-selection, and can lead to accusations of gaming the system in some cases as we've already seen with one candidate in this special election). There are other gripes I have (such as the use of SecurePoll - there was an issue in the original election where voters struggled to find out who was what in the voting panel due to the system randomly sorting the candidates); however, given the changes made between the original election and this special election, I'd like to see how that goes before commenting further. Leaderboard (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Q2: What skills do you think are necessary to work in a multicultural online group dealing with difficult/stressful situations like U4C and what would be your weaknesses in this context? --Civvì (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Communication, adaptability, conflict resolution and minimal time commitment are essential for these roles. In difficult and stressful situations, users should avoid overexerting themselves if they are unsure how to handle such issues and seek assistance from other members if needed. My weakness would be grasping the context in languages/situations that i have limited knowledge/context, will seek assistance from other members while on such occasions.~aanzx ✉ © 06:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not completely sure if your question is about online groups in general or this U4C election especially. As of my experience as member of Wikimedia groups with limited member count, I think the most important skill, even, or especially, in the volunteer environment, is being available for discussions most of the time, so that the group as a whole is able to meet the expectations. I think is has be be called a weakness that I'm not too tolerant when important conclusions fail to be made just because of lack of participation of elected members. Krd 09:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cross-cultural/multicultural approach management skill is very vital in this kind of situation and this could be achieved by ensuring that the UCoC seat is occupied by diverse individuals with different but unique perspective and orientation which would be of great use in managing difficult situations. However, incorporating individuals with diverse opinions and perspective also come with a price - LOTS OF DIFFERENCES - which could also be reworked on to be of great advantage to the team as it would provide the space to look into or explore the possible positivities that could come from a place/perspective one is ignorant of. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Availability and a collaborative attitude. I've worked on a number of committee-like bodies before, both within the Wikimedia movement (Ombs, electcom, steward) and in my professional life. The biggest barriers to effective committee work online are people who don't make the time to meaningfully contribute to committee business, and those who are focused on pushing their own viewpoint forward rather than discussing and working to compromise with the group so that the committee can accomplish its work. On the second point, my personal approach is to state my own opinion first, then read what others are saying, reflect (and comment) on the strengths/weaknesses of their argument and mine, and then ultimately work with the group towards implementing the consensus - even if I may not fully agree. I don't think that these two elements fundamentally change in a multicultural / diverse setting, but it becomes even more important to be willing to step back and consider the perspectives of others. Most of my wiki-work has been on multilingual projects like Wikidata or doing work at the global/cross-wiki level, so I don't think I have any particular weaknesses in this area, though I of course make occasional mistakes and am always sure to reflect on those. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the ability to admit mistakes are important and necessary in a multicultural online groups, irrespective of whether it is related to stressful activities or not. People make mistakes, and without the abilitty to acknowledge and correct them, minor issues may explode into very large issues in a very short time, especially in a multicultural setting, as observed in some multicultural projects, such as the Chinese Wikipedia. Thus, I think the ability to admit and correct mistakes are crucial. I think my weakness in this context will not be the ability to admit mistakes but rather than the ability to spot mistakes, and because of that, I may rather be a bit passive in the first times, so as to avoid making mistakes at all, and observe the social fabric and interaction of the group first. 1233 （T / C） 04:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Q3: I would like you to provide a hypothetical case below. This case is inspired by an actual deletion discussion on the ArWiki, but let's assume it is a hypothetical event.
- Characters: User1 (user), Admin1, Admin2, Admin3, Admin4 (admins)
- Background: User1 can be considered to be a "guest" user on this wiki, primarily contributing to other language editions. On their user page, User1 puts an invitation for collaboration notice for a different language edition of Wikipedia, together with a Discord link, as is common within many Wikimedia projects. Admin1 thinks this is an advertisement, and deletes the user page, with a red template indicating that the page is deleted due to advertisement.
- Deletion discussion: The discussion is about an article for a belly dancer from User1's country. The discussion is started by Admin2, claiming the subject is not notable. User1 proposes to keep the article, providing references that they consider reliable and independent, proving the subject's notability. Admin2 disagrees and repeatedly points to the deleted state of User1's user page, implying that a user with a user page in that state can not be credible. Then, Admin2 accuses User1 of deliberately deleting their words, pointing to the deleted state of their user page once again, although it is almost clear that a single word was deleted by mistake. Admin3 joins the discussion with a single-line comment: Delete, "belly dancer"
. Admin4 quickly closes the discussion with a decision to "delete", on the same day as User1 joins the discussion, although the discussion had been open for almost four weeks until that day.
- These kinds of events can happen at any Wiki, so I wanted to keep it as general as possible. I would like to learn, in your perspective, whether the characters' behavior given in this case is compatible with the UCoC guidelines, and if not, what can be done to reduce situations like these in the long term. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's an excellent example; indeed it can happen in a similar way on any wiki, and obviously it's not in line with UCoC guidelines. Though the explicit UCoC guidelines are relatively new, the outlined combined behaviour is already in opposition of preexisting policies and general rules of life, but there appears to be no known way to completely avoid such things, as none of the participants can be blamed alone, but it's a sum of small mistakes which can happen to any active admin.
- I don't expect a patentable solution to be found quickly, but I hope some well chosen small steps can be figured out which can help to break such chains of mistakes more often without leaving more room for actual abusers. Krd 06:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments and questions for each candidate
Questions
- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 47% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think the first U4C election was a not well-baked cake, because of that many first time problems. The rules have been a bit messy (and was acknowledged in the postmortem) and the opportunity to highlight one's personal quantities were just too hard, as voters may not have the time to really read through that many questions, plus that many candidates, and could only judge only by hard stats (e.g. edit count, on-wiki roles etc.). I do think that, with the reduced amount of questions for this election, plus a more organized spot for candidate-related info, it may make a difference. 1233 （T / C） 01:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- ...
Questions
- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 37% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- The fact that representation is needed in all regions, SSA have no representatives there for the need to re-run and be represented in the UCOC for betterment and total inclusivity. 787IYO (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Questions
- Hi Aishik Rehman, three days ago you posted your candidacy, but the self introduction is still missing. Would you please introduce yourself, preferably on your candidate's page? Thank you in advance for your answer. --Ghilt (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- Hi C.Suthorn, you wrote NWE as your region and the languages you stated are matching. Now, you are applying for the regional CEE (central and east europe) seat, as well as a community-at-large seat. A quote from your self introduction is "as some of the photos and videos I upload to Commons are either from Poland or were made in Germany and Austria but are about Central European topics". This is the only association between you and CEE in your candidate's statement. Can you allay an impression of a strategic choice of region to increase your chances of getting elected? Thank you in advance for your reply, --Ghilt (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 44% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- Judging by the fact that there was still no single representative from the SSA on any of the seat in the just concluded election, I still feel that there's need for that regional representation to ensure equal representation of all the regions including the SSA, hence my bid again.
Questions
- I find your statement rather strange - you're pretty much one of the only candidates with just two lines that doesn't tell anything about why you've applied for the role and what you've done. I'm curious on your stance on this (i.e, why you think that wasn't necessary). Leaderboard (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that this may appear strange. Of course the obvious approach is to start by "Hello, my name is Krd, this is the list of roles I had, this is the list of unverifyable facts about me in private life, and this is my agenda." I thought about this and decided that this will not be my style this time, especially when the 500 words limit implies that a short statement is appreciated, so I tried to keep it a short as possible. I also think that usefullness of private life experience and qualification is often overrated, so though I perhaps could have mentioned one or another, I decided to skip that. And I don't have any agenda, but look forward to work with the group as open minded a possible. Krd 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The comments I see on your 2021 steward confirmation suggest concerns that would be relevant if you're a member of the U4CC. What do you have to say about that? Leaderboard (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think some parts of the concerns are reasonable, and some perhaps are not. True is that I made mistakes when handling requests. I can even consider that I'm technically so underqualified for the steward role that I don't even understand how bad my work was. I don't think I have problems dealing with opposition to my actions, and I don't think I have have bad communication skills when being approached in a reasonable way. (I sometimes tend to be not overly helpful in return when being approached in a rude way, and I'm working on improving that.) Sadly I'm unable to improve anything regarding issues never talked about. I did quit as soon as I had reason to assume that I was not wanted as a team member, and I wish this had been pointed out earlier and with less drama. Krd 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- ...
Questions
- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 48% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly: I cannot guarantee that the result with change - can well be possible that the result wouldn't.
- With that in mind: it is difficult to answer your question unfortunately, because the main difference in my "wiki-profile" is that I got Meta adminship; it is not clear on whether that would make a difference and my wiki-profile hasn't changed otherwise. Similarly, I do not know whether the other changes the U4C made regarding the election structure would result in a difference in my chances of getting elected. I did briefly speculate on why I didn't get elected on the evaluation page of the original election, but as expected there wasn't enough data to make any conclusions from this. Leaderboard (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- ...
Questions
- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 52% support ratio. While above 50%, that was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- ...
Questions
- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 54% support ratio. While above 50%, that was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- ...
Questions
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- ...
Comments
- ...
Questions
- You ran earlier this year in the first U4C election, with a resulting 40% support ratio, which was insufficient to elect you. Why do you think the result will be different this time? Izno (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- ...
Questions
- Earlier this year, you ran for steward but wasn't successful, one of which was using fandom wikis as experience, inability to detect spam among other very poor responses. Can you elaborate on why your candidacy didn't go as expected and what has changed from you since? Your election statement also does not seem particularly convincing, particularly, it doesn't address why you want to be a part of the U4C. --SHB2000 (t • c) 00:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- poor responses could have been reason for unsuccessful candidacy as answers i replied seemed logical to me, but it may have not conveyed as correct answers to users reading it, as i meant my experience on Fandom was meant as knowledge of similar tools and experience handling similar situation as stewards usergroup.
- Inability to detect spam: I still think the whole article was written in good faith w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 10 and user clearly had written article as per [1], if I failed to detect it as spam nobody clearly mentioned reasonable explanation why it was spam and i withdrew request for undeletion as the conversation was not going anywhere other clear reason why it was a promotional article, in my opinion if that page could have been out of project scope/not notable article rather than spam.
- reason for applying to be part of U4C team would be as i have fairly good understanding of good understanding of code of conduct guidelines, would like to assist enforcing guidelines however i can.~aanzx ✉ © 07:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- ...
Questions
- ...
Comments
- ...