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

Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

• Coordinating Committee (U4C)
• U4C Announcements
• Training modules
• Cases
• Recurring review
• Elections
  • Elections 2026

←2026

2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee 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.

Questions for all candidates

Q1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Many candidates have already given great answers on this, so I don't really have much new to add. In my view, a candidate who barely crosses the 60% threshold typically has solid relevant experience and mostly good answers to questions, but leaves some voters with slight reservations. A candidate who barely misses the threshold is often very similar in background, yet their responses possibly come across as slightly less convincing to just enough voters. I assume that in such close cases the quality and nuance of the answer usually make the difference as they best demonstrate judgment and trustworthiness.--Borschts ^Talk 23:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Q2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some examples of warnings I gave are here and here

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for specific candidates

787IYO

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

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

Artemev Nikolay

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

Borschts

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

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

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

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

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

EggRoll97

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

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

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

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

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

EPIC

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

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

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

Ferien

• Since you are a non-voting member and have seen much of the internal procedural work, where do you believe we could improve to be more efficient?--BRP ^ever 05:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Fulani215

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

Husseyn Issa

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

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

JogiAsad

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

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

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

Kadı

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other cases are mostly about the checkusers. Claims of misuse of the CU tools are handled by the Ombuds Commission, if I were a member of U4C, I would be declining these cases.

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

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

Olimasy

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

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

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

Pharouqenr

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

Thank you @SHB2000 for asking this question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks @Ajraddatz for the question.

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

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

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

Qədir

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

SanBonne

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

Hello @A09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ToprakM

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

Uncle Bash007

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

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

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