Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements

Proposed list of tools

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Proposed list of tools

• The list looks reasonable and all members of the U4C were elected in due process, proving the community's trust. I would be  Support. Nadzik (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable, 3 of these are generally given to (* all users), 5 are "view only" normally included in sysop; 2FA is no big deal; (abusefilter-hidden-log) is the only stretch in to an item that is normally just for oversighters -- however for those that don't know better this specific log doesn't support revision deletion, so if it has to be hidden this is the only way to hide it currently. LAdmin on meta seems fine for the purpose - should use a special expiration equal to the elected term, even if over 1 year. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• No objection, but just curious what specific tasks you expect to use admin on Meta for. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 00:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Managing users in U4C space and translation admin activities are the two that are on my mind. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would prefer that translation adminship not be granted without a request for translation admin, for basically the same reasons as Meta:Requests for comment/Change to WMF staff user rights policy. Especially since the skillset of properly preparing a page for translation has little to do with anything else. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Then the permissions need to be fixed. As it stands I do not see a reason why these members cannot do translationadmin stuff as well for U4C pages. Leaderboard (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  To build on what leaderboard says the charter section linked does give the U4C broad rights about what tools it can have. However, I am certainly thinking about the broader point being made here (just because we can request it doesn't mean we should). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not disputing that the Charter gives the U4C the ability to grant itaself translation adminship. I'm saying that the community requirements for translation adminship these days amount to "do you know how the Translaste extension works" and U4C members are no more likely to know how it works and hence be qualified than anyone else, and lots of messes have been made in the past by people without sufficient understanding of translate syntax marking incorrectly prepared pages for translation. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, being on the U4C probably would mean that the person is more cautious when it comes to technical abilities, but I get your reasoning and your point. Which is why I decided to request it through the community process :)

  On another note, I think we can initially just propose limited adminship within the scope of imposing partial blocks from U4C related pages, deleting/undeleting U4C related pages and other types of U4C related administration if required, for us to have some level of limited control on e.g. comments on public case pages. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the concern here is that using translationadmin without actually learning how to use it properly can (and has been) disruptive, this is generally due to lack of training or errors than malintent. Gaining TA access naturally is a fairly low bar, and coupling it with a different group could lead to the rather unpleasant scenario of local project blocks on those disruptively using it (as it can't just be revoked). My suggestion is that committee members that actually want to work with those functions learn them and just ask for the access directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would think that just like ombuds, the U4C members should have the ability to view suppressed revisions (both normal revision-delete and oversight-level suppression)? I could also see a case for global CheckUser for the same reason. Limited adminship on Meta is sensible. Leaderboard (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Given that issues with OS / CU are handled by Ombuds, I can't imagine many U4C cases where access to suppressed revisions or CU logs is necessary? We could add the necessary permissions temporarily if/when the need arises. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I thought OS/CU would be required in the course of U4C's duties (for example, to investigate alleged abuse or sock puppetry of an admin). Leaderboard (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ombuds Commission (OC) reviews whether a user has used the CheckUser (CU) or Oversight (OS) tools in compliance with the policy. Actions such as blocks, bans, warnings, or other measures taken based on information obtained from the CU tool are not within the OC's scope. However, CU or OS access may be required for Committee if an appeal or case involves CU data or if an alleged edit has been oversighted. —MdsShakil (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  We'll have to see how it really turns out but I am not anticipating the same kind of OS/CU need for the U4C as enwiki ArbCom has. But also our philosophy has been to try and be (small c) conservative with this request. If we find we need more tools, the charter obviously allows us to ask for more - I can also see additional tool requests for certain cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• If there are U4C cases involving users without an account (or users editing logged out) you might want to add ipinfo and checkuser-temporary-account in order to deal with temporary accounts. The same permissions are given to global rollbackers and similar global groups. --Johannnes89 (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed inactivity rule

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Proposed inactivity rule

• To add a bit of personal commentary here, the intent of this rule is to allow the committee to work in the context of barely meeting the quorum when one member (or up to three) are unexpectedly absent. The thinking here, at least on my part, is that the community has decided there should be a U4C and elected sufficient members to it for it to perform its functions. However, without this rule in place, in practice we may not be able to take decisions as a committee. Community comments are very welcome - is this going outside the spirit of the quorum requirement in the U4C charter? Is it important that we find a way to operate within our current constraints so we can begin operations? Would people like to see the issue of quorum / how U4C members are elected reviewed as part of the annual review of the enforcement guidelines and UCoC before the next elections? – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Despite the above, no vote may pass with fewer supporting votes than would be needed to reach a majority with a quorum of members voting for or against (i.e. >50%)." - what exactly does this mean? Does it mean that there must at least be 4 people supporting in any case? Leaderboard (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  A minimum of five with the current quorum; the intent is to allow us to work when one or two people are temporarily away, while still respecting the spirit of the charter in preventing decisions from being taken by a very small number of people. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry for the super-long comment. Most of this is about the relevant Charter line, but as a TL;DR see my last bolded point. To situate this, the U4C charter notes:

The U4C can seat with any number of members, but no decision or vote can be taken by the Committee unless the quorum of 50% (8 members) of the voting members (16 members) is attained.

This doesn't seem to define what it means to "attain" quorum. There seem to be three possible interpretations:

1. The committee attains broad quorum when it has 8 or more members
2. The committee attains decision-specific quorum when 8 or more members vote on a decision
3. The committee attains decision-specific quorum when 8 or more members vote in favor of a decision

If it's 2, it's unclear whether it includes abstentions (relevant to this request). I'm thinking that 1 might be the best interpretation, given that the Charter's sentence implies that a vote can't occur unless quorum is reached ("no decision or vote can be taken")...and thus quorum cannot refer to voting members because a vote cannot happen without quorum. Hopefully this proposed rule can help (implicitly or explicitly) clarify this.

So, re: the proposed inactivity rule, the relevant line is:

...no vote may pass with fewer supporting votes than would be needed to reach a majority with a quorum of members voting for or against (i.e. >50%).

Let me know if this is a correct interpretation: Votes may pass if fewer than 8 (the quorum number) members participate, so long as at least 5 (8/2+1) vote in support. (and ofc that fewer than 5 vote in opposition, which is guaranteed with the current committee size)

I think this works optimally when we only have 8 members: if 5 members vote in support of a decision and 3 are inactive (and thus abstained), those 3 votes wouldn't change the outcome even if they all voted oppose. Therefore, when there are only 8 members, this method makes no assumptions about the voting preferences of the inactive members. However...if you had the full 16 members, this would still require only 5 members to pass if everyone else was inactive/abstained. This is because it is based on the quorum (always 8) and not total membership. I think that's okay, but something to be aware of.

Mainly, I think this sentence should be clarified by expanding "with", which is ambiguous, to "in a situation where". I.e.: "No vote may pass with fewer supporting votes than would be required in a situation where a full quorum of members voted." This would make interpretation a bit easier imo. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 19:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As discussed offline, I agree with the suggestion and we will put that into the final text :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Inactivity rule

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#Inactivity rule

User rights

See the announcement at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Announcements#User rights

• Out of curiosity, does the U4C intend to publish the names of the members who voted in a particular way in this or future announcements? My sense is that transparency is helpful except when there are specific reasons for withholding that information, but am happy to hear arguments otherwise. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 03:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done, --Ghilt (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding Meta admin rights, as written, this motion only requests limited permissions for the U4C, but it appears to be interpreted by some as abolishing the authority of the regular Meta admins and overriding the Meta policies on U4C-related pages. Could you please clarify exactly what the U4C motion entails? I would strongly prefer that the authority of the regular Meta admins and the Meta policies remain in place as much as possible, especially for the talk pages. That would bring some form of additional "separation of powers". This is especially important since, as opposed to ArbCom's within specific projects, the U4C members come from a diverse set of projects that have quite different norms, so they can take actions that would be acceptable in their home projects but controversial on Meta. Thanks for considering. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Can you link to examples of "interpreted by some as abolishing the authority of the regular Meta admins and overriding the Meta policies on U4C-related pages."? This would provide helpful context as I consider your questions. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Barkeep49, the core example is the response of the Meta admins when I objected to the admin action taken by Ibrahim.ID.[1] Also, Ghilt seemed to be aligned with the interpretation of the Meta admins.[2] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am speaking only for myself with this comment. I largely agree with Luke's comment. We have Meta sysop in order to manage U4C pages. This includes moderating the pages themselves. You seem to be writing that somehow the U4C members should not have this power - because we come from different projects - and I'm going to respectfully disagree. If the consensus of full Meta admins is, as one admin says in that discussion, that they're going to leave moderation to us outside of vandalism and spam, I'm not inclined to ask them to do otherwise right now, because I think the U4C has capacity (and a global mandate through the elections) to handle our pages and processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  (Speaking for myself at the moment) To address what has been said more explicitly: If a U4C member has violated a Meta policy and disrupted the project, then Meta admins are totally free to take whatever actions necessary towards the user. However, content moderation around our case pages should remain something that the U4C itself does. We are the primary body that these comments are addressed to, thus I believe we are able to decide what can be included/removed from these discussion pages. If you take issue with the removal by an individual U4C member, you should talk to the U4C (not Meta admins) and ask us to form a collective decision on whether the removal is justified. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorting and announcements on this page

@Ghilt: Can I ask why the main page is now sorted new-to-old, while this talk page is sorted old-to-new? Seems a bit counterintuitive, and other announcement pages seem to be old-to-new, so this is a bit of a confusing layout.

Separately, is there any plan to cross-post, or otherwise announce more broadly, the U4C's announcements? A MassMessage list would be best, but anything will do; on enwiki, we automatically post ArbCom announcements to the administrators' noticeboard there. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 03:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi KevinL, the cases are sorted new to old for convenience to the community (we have been asked to sort the cases new to old). Unfortunately, talk pages are always sorted old to new (by clicking on 'Add topic'). Do you have a recommendation? And regarding the announcements, we are currently discussing means to increase announcement visibility. --Ghilt (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

de.wiktionary

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#de.wiktionary

クフィ

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#クフィ

Adding to our role

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#Adding_to_our_role

• Why? How are community protection policies hampering the work of this committee? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I was unable to deliver notifications of a case filed against two users recently because they had semiprotection on their usertalk because of previous harassment and I was not autoconfirmed on that wiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The (editsemiprotected) permission could overcome that, the (autoconfirmed) permission is about rate limits. What type of rate limit problems are you encountering? — xaosflux ^Talk 10:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There might be a possibility for edit filters to prevent non-autoconfirmed users from editing someone's talk page when delivering notifications, though that might be very rare. If editsemiprotected alone is helpful in bypassing semi-protection that some editor's talk pages have, then I think that is enough for the time being. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's happened repeatedly with WMF staff delivering notifications to noticeboards on small/medium wikis. I think most global filters should be updated to use global_edit_count, but that's not the case on wikis that manage their own edit filters, which is why I recommended that the U4C request it. We give global rollbackers global autoconfirmed, so I'm really not concerned about it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

In my comment below I was specifically thinking about global rollbackers having it and was wondering what harm/abuse xaos saw arising from U4C (who I think have a higher degree of shown trust than the average global rollbacker). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My bot also runs into this issue respectively - autoconfirmed is a sensible addition though if one isn't autoconfirmed, usually it simply results in a CAPTCHA rather than an explicit prohibition from my experience. Leaderboard (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xaosflux can I ask what your concern is with the U4C having this role? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My read is that this committee has a specific purpose, and should only be gaining permissions necessary to meet that purpose. What I'm mostly asking for is that when the committee wants a permission added to themselves they should be able to explain why it is necessary, not just because we said so. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons administrator case suspension

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#Commons_administrator case_suspension

U4C Non-voting member appointed

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#U4C_Non-voting_member_appointed

• It is great to see that the WMF is taking the U4C seriously by appointing from high up in the Foundation . Sdrqaz (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• When Jacob's name was suggested as a possibility I was super excited and even more excited when it was confirmed. I genuinely look forward to whatever he might contribute to our work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Бабкинъ Михаилъ

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#Бабкинъ Михаилъ

• Do they have a username, can you provide a link to the account? Ciell (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Special:CentralAuth/Бабкинъ Михаилъ. Luke081515 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

U4C Meeting

See the announcement at Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Announcements#U4C_Meeting

• Where was this held? Was it as part of some other event? Leaderboard (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  It was held in Amsterdam for reasons of price and geography and was not part of some other event. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  And who paid for it? WMF or the members themselves? Leaderboard (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  What a strange and suggestive question. Ciell (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 A response to my question would be nice to have. Leaderboard (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that this report goes above and beyond our responsibilities to be transparent (which under the charter are merely restricted to cases). Which I like and support. But which also means that I don't feel a huge need to answer a series of increasingly probing questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I disagree with the claim about "probing" - I was not expecting more than a few words. This was actually meant to be my last question on this topic, and the reason I asked this specifically is because generally this is not the case from my (pretty limited) experience. For example, parts of the Board of Trustees 2024 election were done at Wikimania 2024 - and that makes sense logistically. It may be obvious for you, but I still find the concept of having three days for an in-person meeting of a volunteer group somewhat of a head-scratcher, especially when some of the members would have to travel thousands of kilometres for it. I hence do not find my question unreasonable or excessive at all. Leaderboard (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update and thanks to all U4C members for taking the time and possibly traveling to meet in person. As a community member, I appreciate all your efforts toward improving the U4C, UCoC and toward achieving the broader goals. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding checkuser-log temporary to the userrights of the U4C

Isn't this a bit of a mix-up between what the Ombuds Commission does and what U4C does? Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 15:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The Ombuds certainly have jurisdiction over use and abuse of the checkuser tool and for this reason I was initially skeptical of this proposal. However, because use of Checkuser is an important part of the over all allegations, there is information we need in order to perform our investigation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Why does this have to be temporary? Leaderboard (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it depends on our experience in the future. We are currently unsure, if we have so many cases that need this kind of investigation, that justifies a permanent assign of such a sensitive right. I think this is a question, where we haven't find a consensus on how to handle it in the future yet, so we started with having it temporary assigned for that case, as that's something everyone can agree with. Best regards, Luke081515 20:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And in cases where you only need to review CheckUser logs, why wouldn't it be better to ask for assistance from a member of the Ombuds? That would demonstrate synergy between both volunteer bodies. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 07:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Synergy for synergy's sake seems a little inefficient to me, especially when it isn't clear whether policy and past precedent supports such practice. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad we first started discussing possible CU needs during our in person meetings. There was skepticism from a few members (including myself) about the need for us to have direct access. One thing that came out of that was us seeking confirmation from Legal that the Ombuds and/or the Stewards would be able to share appropriate information with us, without us having to explicitly grant ourselves the accompanying rights. Legal did indeed confirm that. So I think there can certainly be cases where that's the route we explore in the future. In this case there were a number of circumstances where, for me, and despite my skepticism, where I became convinced the log access just made sense. I obviously can't speak for other members of the U4C. But what might make sense is for the U4C and Ombuds to have a meeting together? We have had several opportunities to interact with the Stewards to develop a positive ongoing relationship between the two groups, and a meeting between our two committees might help in terms of figuring out what synergies there are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Talking to each other is always a good idea. I would appreciate such a meeting. That said, I think it is perfectly fine for the U4C to have the log access if it is helpful for a specific case. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)