Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/A.Savin

Parties

Parties	Notifications
1989 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	Filer
A.Savin (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1]

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 1989 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1989

Description of the problem - (1989)

A.Savin is a long-term administrator who has served Commons since 2007. This user is one of the most problematic admins I’ve ever met, and needs to be reinsured on how they conduct themselves because the community or in this case, his colleagues fail to keep him in check. There is no other way dealing with this because as of now, there is no ArbCom in place of Commons and there have been numerous attempts to have something done, but in the end, nothing. Keep in mind the following is what I know from the top of my head or some I’ve ran into later, so there may be more.

2025

Personal attack against de-RfA initiator [2]
This admins response to this discussion, calling it "harassment" [3], shows he has no interest in holding himself accountable to his actions.
- In his further commentary, he calls the initiation of this discussion "snitching" and calls my concerns "utter nonsense" in bold text, that just goes to show how unserious he is treating this process. [4]

2024

Changing this users block to indefinite while turning off email could be an involved action (not neutral) per this personal attack
"You don’t give a shit, right?" [sic] [5]

On December 2024, he compares another users comments to Vladimir Putin. [6]

Bad faith comment about another user. [7]

He issues a personal attack, calling another user a coward. [8]

On September 2024, he makes a comment accusing another administrator of "libel" and threatens to block them after they made a comment in good faith about a user reported. [9]

He does this with another user, accusing them of doing "damage control", and antagonizes them. [10]

He attacks another user in the German language. [11]

2022

He abuses the toolset and blocks another user for expressing their beliefs on another project. [12]

A then-admin who’s now WMF banned expressed being "more than happy to turn a blind eye" to his misconduct, which perfectly explains why nothing is done about this. [13]

2021

This admin calls a user contributing in good faith "a vandal". [14]

This admin starts another thread on my talk page, despite at that time there was already a discussion taken place, accusing me of harassment with no evidence, making threats and being intimidating. [15]

This admin made false allegations that I was seeking conflict with him yet he initiated the conflict. He makes more bad faith commentary claiming I advocated for another user he was wikihounding (more on that later) as a means to attack him with no evidence. [16]

Initiation: [17]

"Maybe you should apply as judge in the [Alexei] Navalny's trial" [18]

Two users expressed towards him he was harassing me and one told him to resign his tools, doesn’t even acknowledge the comments. [19][20]

When discussing his 2016 block for harassment, he states the comments he made towards the user were "perfectly justified", learning nothing from the situation. [21]

2020

Calls another user "stupid" [22]

This admin was wikihounding another user for more than a year by abusing the rollback tool to reverse changes made by them he disagreed with and leaving threatening messages. The user felt they were being stalked, but of course, the admin dismisses that and coincidentally the community too by failing to resolve that situation. [23]

- Over 200 rollback reverts made by him: [24][25] (Note: The user renamed themselves, that’s why there are two links.)
- Back then, I went bold and blocked the admin for it. It was met with backlash, and I inevitably ended up resigning. here
- When the user attempts to communicate with the admin, he removes the message and calls them an idiot in the edit summary. [26]
- To this day, he calls their edits "clear vandalism".

2016

This admin accused a contributor of socking with no evidence, then later removed it stating he was just trolling. [27]

2013

This admin blocks another admin then unblocks him 15 minutes later, throwing a personal attack in the summary. [28]

2012

When someone nominated themselves for adminship, he left an Oppose with no explanation. When asked why, he gave an xenophobic answer. When it was brought to the community, they did nothing. [29]

Previous attempts at a solution - (1989)

Two desysop discussions resulted in no action due to most expressing "no abuse of the toolset", in which further explains why nothing is done about his misconduct. [30][31]

Replies - (1989)

@GPSLeo: There is nothing in the enforcement guidelines that requires previous attempts to a solution to be most recent. Given one of them goes back to 2021, that should be recent enough. BTW, given the pattern on how those proposals go in regards to this admin, it would have resulted the same way. Also, I don’t know where you’re getting the topic featured pictures from. I’ve said nothing about that. 1989 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: This case is not about Kallerna nor featured pictures, please stay on topic. 1989 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin

Replies - (A.Savin)

I'm very sorry for being busy IRL and not being able to answer on everything promptly...

Most importantly, I'm still hoping for someone to answer questions already raised: 1989 is not neutral about me (more on this below), so why does he have to file this request, despite the fact that there is no interaction history of mine with 1989 more recent than a couple of years ago? If I treated an other user or several other users bad, shouldn't that user(s) be the one(s) complaining instead? And if 1989 is complaining on behalf of an other user or several users, why is it not mentioned here, be it just for the sake of transparency and fairness?

This complaint is basically not really more than a random collection of mostly old difflinks, most of which are not even related to each other. In German best term for such collection is "Sammelsurium" which apparently does not have English equivalents but is labelled on Wikidata as "German word meaning 'a disordered, unsystematic assortment or mixture'"; which matches the essence quite well. Nothing different we see in this complaint, obviously.

As said, my time is currently limited, so I don't have the possibility to comment on every link from this "Sammelsurium". It's also I don't think I have necessarily to comment on years-old comments... The uttermost are just nothing but obsolete and really not worth discussing so much later, especially given the fact that a) they have been [as usual on any Wikimedia project] publicly visible from the beginning and all the time went by, b) there were plenty of possibilities to discuss each of them much earlier, and virtually all *had* been discussed with a sufficient number of participants already. I really don't feel a need to discuss such old stuff again. Just saying: on some links 1989 is ~right, on some not (like for [but not limited to] this terrible and unfair "xenophobic" accusation), but even for those where he's ~right I don't think we have to discuss them again now and moreover on Meta instead on Commons. Still being said, if I offended someone and that one person is still feeling painful about that, I sincerely apologize for that. Even unfriendly comments I never mean to be painful for their addressant for a long time in future. And I'm permanently trying to learn to improve myself, which you may believe or not...

As for more recent comments, yes there were some unfriendly ones indeed. I apologize if some of them have gone too far... But I also think they should be considered within context and not merely labelled like "he compared him with Putin", "he called him a coward" etc.pp... In fact, there is a little(?) difference between saying to someone "You are a coward!" and the replica "Too coward to say their name?" ending with a question mark, especially taken its context, in case someone is interested about that: User:Wilfredor publicly called an unnamed user (presumably not me, but who knows...) not less than "a narcissistic, xenophobic, anti-Brazilian user with ample time to construct elaborate and seemingly convincing narratives filled with carefully fabricated "evidence" in their distorted fantasy"... Please consider: who is more the one violating the UCoC here? Even no matter who is meant by "narcissistic, xenophobic, anti-Brazilian" -- is there a single one good-faith Wikimedia contributor out there who would like to be insulted like this? Is "xenophobia" meanwhile kind of a universal accusation everyone here may label any unpopular user with? Is this really something we wish to have as usual conduct on Commons or elsewhere? For my part, I *hate* xenophobia more than virtually anything else and I really don't wish to be called xenophobic by whoever... Is this really so difficult to understand?..

If I didn't miss something, other ~fresh difflinks more or less have to do with the disputes about User:Charlesjsharp. Indeed, couple of years ago this user openly accused me on Commons of a real criminal offence on wildlife protectional laws during a photo session in Sri Lanka... I explained several times why it's unsubstantiated at the very least, but there was no apology but only further confirmations, if anything... Please understand, I work under my real name and I don't want to be publicly accused of criminal offences... But again, do we have to discuss this all here? Just for the record to be said, I'm not complaining against Charlesjsharp despite the fact that I actually might have a reason to do that... Still, my volunteer's time is limited and I would much prefer to spend it on contentual contribution instead of disputes...

So my logical suggestion is: Please reject this complaint. I wish to be left alone by 1989, not more and not less. I don't see any point in complaining by 1989 against me, except for personal vendetta or bashing or harassment of whatever kind and origin.

In fact, 1989 is by no means neutral about me. He is clearly negatively biased towards me. I would like to know for what reason(s), but I really don't know. I really fail to understand this all, but meanwhile I don't think there are any rational explanations behind. As said, we didn't interact recent years until this complaint (which was good as is), but earlier comments by 1989 directed at me were often really hostile. 1989 seldom tried to talk to me instead about me. Among the few comments directed at me in the 1st instead of 3rd person, there is the already mentioned "Fuck off", or also this unfriendly comment with my username being (deliberately?) warped... You might be surprised, but actually I don't remember not a single one really friendly comment by 1989 directed at me (for example beginning with "Hello A.Savin", "Could you please consider...", ending with "Regards" etc.pp...) Words sometimes can do magic... So if there is [other than my feeling tells] any rational reason for 1989 to dislike me, why did he not try to resolve it with me first? And if there is indeed no rational reason, then what on Planet Earth are we discussing about here, please?

In short: can someone explain to me this absurdity that seems to be going on for years now? Can we solve it on Commons instead on Meta which is logically more of a place for cross-wiki issues? Again, I sincerely apologize if someone is feeling not treated properly by me... And again, can 1989 simply leave me alone and refrain from hounding me?

Kind regards --A.Savin (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request by A.Savin

I hereby request dear members of the U4C to take a closer look at the text by 1989 in the above "2012" subsection (see bottom part of #Description of the problem - (1989)).

In that subsection, there is a clear allegation that I would have used a xenophobic comment.

If I understand correctly, it's about this response.

Please evaluate this comment and tell us all if you find it xenophobic.

If you agree that this comment is xenophobic, then please block me, as I'm truly convinced that if I'm xenophobic I don't deserve the privilege to be a member of the Wikimedia community.

If you disagree, then please remove this text part and consider a sanction against 1989 due to libel.

I also don't think it matters much whether 1989 really knows what xenophobia is or not.

Thank you --A.Savin (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (User:GPSLeo)

I think this case mixes two topics. One topic is a complaint about the admin activities of A.Savin what I would consider as formally invalid for a U4C case as there was no recent declined de-admin request. The other topic is a general dispute between the community around the featured pictures system and many admins on Commons. For this problem I indeed see a need for some external help. GPSLeo (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (User:Charlesjsharp)

Apologies to the committee if I am not supposed to post here. But my name has been mentioned by A.Savin. I am available if the committee wishes to contact me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp yes, please, give us your insights. Ghilt (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt I have recently been blocked and warned about a possible indefinite Commmons ban, so I am too afraid to do that. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Wilfredor)

I would like to clarify that I have never been involved in this type of discussion, and my name has been mentioned in the text without the appropriate context. For a while now, I have chosen to refrain from engaging with the administrator due to their disruptive behavior and harassment towards me. My sole request is that this individual stops mentioning and harassing me. I am not avoiding conflict out of fear;[32] rather, I value a peaceful and trouble-free life. I am here primarily to share photos and do not have the time or inclination for unproductive debates. I would like to bring up something that calling me "Vladimir Putin."[33] This is not only upsetting but personally painful, not because of any association with Putin's authoritarian nature, but because I come from Venezuela—a country devastated and heavily influenced by Russia. This kind of remark toward me is entirely inappropriate and has no place in a collaborative environment. I respectfully ask that it stops immediately. However, I must admit that I do not feel Wikimedia Commons is a safe space to raise such concerns, as I fear potential repercussions. Despite this, I feel compelled to request some form of support or protection to address this matter fairly. IMHO it's important to distinguish between interpersonal conflicts and verifiable patterns of behavior when evaluating this case. We can see historical tensions between specific parties that add context, the primary focus should remain on the actions relevant to this investigation. The integrity of the UCoC enforcement process depends on prioritizing evidence over assumptions about personal motivations. I have noticed a pattern of negative behavior that has persisted or even worsened over the years that impacts the perception of the individual involved but also harms the collaborative environment of the project. Wilfredor (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Because of this discussion I have opened a Request for De-adminship of A.Savin in Wikimedia Commons Wilfredor (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Commons, there seems to be a widespread consensus, especially among administrators, that normalizes these abuses and acts of disrespect. Unfortunately, I doubt any measures will be taken, which foretells a future similar to Wikipedia, an increasingly toxic environment, with more users leaving the platform and fewer new members joining. This is not just A. Savin's responsibility but that of the system itself, which allows administrators to hold lifelong positions and use their power in an intimidating manner. For now, I can only wait for the day when this issue is forgotten, under any pretext, and I end up being blocked. Wilfredor (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: This isn't about two sides clashing; it's about a user displaying disrespectful behavior towards several parties, some of whom are blocked or afraid to speak up due to the risk of being blocked as well. I can't speak for others, but personally, I'm completely calm. Demanding respect has nothing to do with being upset.. Wilfredor (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (ArionStar)

I know I'm a Commons blocked user (for valid reasons), but I just wanted to mention that he called me "poor" (as Charles being "rich") in a discussion that I wasn't even involved in. I was a disruptive user there, yes... but he didn't need to talk about my financial conditions. Maybe because I don't travel internationally nor do I have a professional camera… I don't know… The "anti-Brazilian" issue refers to my misconducts around these years, as well as an alleged "Brazilian lobby/canvassing" on Commons. ArionStar (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Christian Ferrer)

I'm administrator in Wikimedia Commons and for years now I'm in conflict with A.Savin, here is our last interaction. He should not be administrator because in case of conflict he is not capable of defusing, but rather of outbidding, it is not appropriate for an administrator and potentially toxic for a collaborative project. The best exemple is there, a threat of legal action (prohibited in Wikimedia), after a dispute in a forum about image quality, no matter the begining of that dispute, to come to that point for a childish dispute is toxic. Yes this link is old but it illustrates particularly well the propensity that A.Savin had to be authoritarian, aggressive and threatening when he was involved. Does Wikimedia Commons aware? yes. Does Wikimedia Commons agree that behavior is acceptable for an administrator? sadly apparently yes. Has this committee the possibility to do something? I don't know. Does A.Savin has changed? I don't know, possible, I can't say because I am not looking at him since a few years. Why I write this message now? I ask nothing, I have been notified off Wiki, and nothing will prevent me to say my truth, as an user he has often been quicker to inflame a conflict/disagreement than to calm it down, which often pushed him, as an administrator, to threaten people with whom he had arguments to use his administrator tools. May the Wikimedia community accept that or not, and may he has potentially changed or not, it is fully my right, and potentially my duty, to have the possibility to denounce this. And to denounce this, is/was not harassment made by me as complained several times by A.Savin, to call that "harassament" looks IMO as a childish defense, which is also not worthy of an administrator. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (User:Abzeronow)

I agree with GPSLeo that the more general issue of Featured Pictures could use some U4C help. I would also consider a case against A. Savin to be invalid for the reasons GPSLeo states. However, U4C should consider a look at c:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship 2) as well since this was also from an incident involving Featured Pictures Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to add that conduct by ArionStar https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_116#c-Basile_Morin-20241007072400-Ban_ArionStar_=_ArionEstar_(=_%22%E2%98%85%22)_from_FPC,_proposal_due_to_recurrent_/_unsol and Charlesjsharp https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#c-Giles_Laurent-20250116225100-Admin_actions_requested on Featured Pictures was included in the recent reports to ANU (diffs are the reports) that had blocks applied during the course or as the resolution to it. A. Savin had initiated the de-admin request I linked above arising from an incident in which Kallerna had unblocked a user that A. Savin had blocked (Featured Pictures conduct contributed to that block). If U4C feels it is not relevant, I will not press the issue further. Abzeronow (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (User:Aristeas)

A.Savin is not the most polite admin on Wikimedia Commons, but he is one of the most trustworthy and careful admins there. In the 19 years I have been contributing to Commons, and especially in the last years in which I have done much maintenance work, I have seen many overhasty and problematic actions by other users and also by admins, but not by A.Savin. I have read many very impolite comments, but only very few of them were made by A.Savin. A.Savin is one of our best and most careful hunters for sock puppet accounts, he has identified most of the sock puppets of Livioandronico2013. And there are so many more good things he has done. Punishing or (even worse) banning A.Savin would rob Commons of one of its best admins. – Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (W.carter)

I'm a longtime user, but this forum is a first time for me. Of course I can't speak for all of A.Savin's actions on Commons, nor do I feel I can properly investigate every nuance of this latest dispute. I see this as yet another case of accumulated grievance. A.Savin has a very blunt and direct way of dealing with problems on Commons, but I don't mind that. He reminds me of an old drill sergeant, who's seen it all and is only interested in keeping some sort of order on this very unruly platform. If you behave, you have nothing to worry about, but if you go against the rules or guidelines, you have some talking-to coming your way. (I've had a couple too, but he was right in what he said then.) I think we need such admins too. Dealing with all the crap an admin has to go through all the time, we can't expect all these folks to be hand-holding and sympathetic when they clean up messes. A.Savin is a front-line admin, not afraid to step into dirty situations, and that also makes him a very visible admin and consequently an easy target for users who cry about bruised toes and/or egos. As a hi-vis guy he is more likely to get reported over time than the admins who take on a more administrative role, so of course his name comes up a lot in discussions like this. I've always found him to be a competent listener, someone who can be swayed by facts and make a decision based on them. He's one of the few admins I've seen to take an active stance against the prevalent misogyny on FPC, that's not something you see very often here. As a woman, I value this a lot. On top of this I wouldn't want to lose one of our top categorizer and photographers. --W.carter (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

Hello @1989: where do i find your block of A.Savin in August 2020 in your description above? Maybe i have overlooked. --Ghilt (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. 1989 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like you are avoiding to present an image of a personal vendetta between you two - regardless of if the claim on A.Savin's persistent incivility is true or not. And regarding your addition: you didn't resign completely voluntarily.[34] Ghilt (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s correct, it was a under a cloud resignation. However, the primary focus is on this admins misconduct, I’m not sure what that has to do with me. 1989 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it determines if this case is only about the conduct of an admin or also about revenge in a long-lasting interpersonal conflict. --Ghilt (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s exactly what this case is: the conduct of an admin. Nothing more, nothing less. 1989 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the history between A.Savin and 1989 is important when considering how to view the evidence that involves both of them. However, there is "modern" evidence (which I am defining as from the last 5 years) that involves multiple other editors. I am hoping that A.Savin will either copy over their comments on commons or make a new comment here soon that addresses not just the historical conflict between 1989 and A.Savin but the other evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin: I intentionally did not answer your "why not at commons" question at commons because I wanted it as part of the case page. So I appreciate you asking again here. I want local projects to overwhelmingly be the place where UCoC enforcement happens. And what place the UCoC has with medium and large projects (with commons being closer to a medium project by editors and a large project by scope and pages) is something on my mind. I take seriously the idea that enforcement should be as local as possible. At this moment, the options I am most seriously considering are declining the case or accepting but delegating this back to Commons in some way (with my leading idea being a panel of Commons administrators). While I have no doubt that Commons could likely handle the conflict between you and 1989 (and your desire to be left alone), I am less sure about other elements, becuase of he 2021 desysop discussion had a pretty firm "only abuse of tools matters for desysop" theme. I think multiple parts of the UCoC suggest differently. However, while that was technically after the UCoC passed, it also is long enough ago that I don't expect there to have been enforcement of the UCoC at that time. So if I end up declining it's because I would want to understand that to still be the thinking on Commons today. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been a desysop request based on behavior since his 2021 case, so I believe the "only abuse of tools matters for desysop" theme is still prevalent. 1989 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, Civvì, and 0xDeadbeef: The desysop request has been closed. Throughout its 11-hour run, it received only four votes, three by admins and one who’s not. All of them rejected it based on procedure not being followed, no one in the discussion had anything to say about the concerns listed in this case. Here's the recipients response to it: [35]. 1989 (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting there is now a new discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion has now been archived, with no action. [36] 1989 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to A.Savin's most recent comment, the 2012 comment strikes me as an example of "Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on... nationality..." from the UCoC. The third definition of xenophobia on Wiktionary is "A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners" which could reasonably apply to that comment, while the first definition "A hatred of strangers or foreigners" and second definition "A fear of strangers or foreigners." do not. But I remain as uninterested in relitigating the 2012 comment as I was before. Rather than supporting any block, I'd support all parties trying to maintain some calm in an admittedly stressful situation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: I am glad you are maintaining some calm. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Leaning towards declining. Key to me here is that the last local discussion was three+ years ago; with such a random collection of alleged violations of the UCOC, the large time scale of those alleged violations, and the relatively minor nature of the alleged violations I would expect to see a more serious attempt at local resolution before bringing this matter to the U4C. I'm not happy about the filer being in some sort of longstanding conflict with A.Savin - a UCOC violation should be a UCOC violation regardless of who reports it, but I also don't want to see this committee bogged down mediating various grudges. That said, I don't think the accept/decline decision here rests on that question, so perhaps that's one for another time. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading several discussions, i wondered that hostility is often tolerated in discussions on Commons. So, I had a look at Blocking policy and De-adminship. Both pages do not mention incivility/Wikiquette or even personal attacks. I would like to have a closer look. Maybe we can all work together to achieve an amendment of the blocking policy and the De-Adminship? This would also increase the attractivity for new users. --Ghilt (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very reluctant to say particular policies must have certain UCoC language in them. If Commons had a civility guideline, I wouldn't necessarily expect it in those two places. But Commons doesn't have a civility guideline nor does it otherwise seem to locally incorporate much of the UCoC in some other way. This is in contrast, for me, to the administrators guideline which does incorporate some UCoC elements. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, in my opinion, you (the Commons community) could decide on adding civility to your rules, either as a separate page or as additions to blocking policy and De-Admin. The UCoC and its civility rules already apply to Commons, but are not regularly implemented as blocking or deadministrating reasons. With these addition(s), you (the Commons community) would have your own rule set to take care of this case on your own and we wouldn't be needed for this case. We could ask ask at Commons how you all see this? --Ghilt (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I agree with my colleagues here, the tone of discussions at Commons can be quite hostile and I think having some local discussions about improving that, particularly through amendments to the local blocking and desysop policies, could help. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Wilfredor has now opened a community de-sysop on Commons. I suggest suspending this request until that is resolved. If that is successful this would be made moot. And there has already been one comment that the discussion should be closed there because this is open but I think that's backwards. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on suspending this request and leaving this to local procedures for the moment. I can't help but notice that there seems to be a very high threshold of tolerance for hostility, I wonder how happy the Commons community is with this. --Civvì (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have definitely seen the level of hostility on Commons' discussions greater than other projects, and I wonder what the community on Commons, and what the U4C can do to resolve this. There seems to be procedural opposition to the de-sysop on Commons, and unless the trend changes over there I foresee us spending more time understanding the issues here. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

The case request is suspended for 6 months to allow the Commons community time to incorporate the UCoC into its practices/procedures (e.g. desysop). Following unsuspension the U4C will consider how to further proceed (accept the case, pass a further motion, or decline the case). All editors who have commented on the case will be notified when the case is unsuspended.

Support

I think it's clear that many Commons members are concerned about desysopping for reasons other than tool abuse. I am sympathetic to those concerns and understand that the expectations of the UCoC are a change from what has happened on the project historically. While I find some UCoC violations in the evidence presented, I would much prefer that Commons come together to decide how to handle UCoC violations and how to adapt what it does to include the UCoC than for the U4C to come in from the outside and decide such things or even take action against a single admin. For me this gives the Commons community time to do this work, while leaving the U4C options should progress not get made. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Civvi below. Desysop is meant to truly be an example given rather than the only place. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This way, we can maybe get this issue solved locally on Commons. --Ghilt (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in hopes that this spurs further local discussion and action. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I hope that the discussion at local level will not be limited to the desysop procedure, but will be broader. In multilingual projects what is ‘direct’ communication for some is rude or hostile communication for others, trying to find a compromise is not easy but it is something to discuss. --Civvì (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be reasonable to give the Commons community some time to adjust its policies&guidelies knowing that the UCoC should and will enforced in all projects, and it is much better to have strong local mechanisms to handle these cases rather than escalation. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to give the local community some time to solve the issue there on their own by adjusting policies/guidelines, and I hope it will work. Luke 081515 20:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I support that, I think we should give the local community a chance to discuss and take action first. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

Neutral/abstain

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

The filing of this request has been duly noted. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The motion was posted on the 31th january 2025 on commons here, so this case is on hold until the 31th july 2025. On behalf of the U4C, Luke 081515 09:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]