Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements and proper conduct to discuss any opposition

The following request for comments is closed. There's very solid consensus against this proposal; almost no chance to succeed at this rate. //shb (t • c) 00:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements not good enough if anyone abuses any "full discussion" to excessively repel any opposition as personal attacks. Thus I would like to propose proper conduct to discuss any opposition with regard to the minimum voting requirements.

Any candidates for privileged status, whether importers, administrators, or bureaucrats, should almost never accuse any oppositions as personal attacks. Otherwise, major chaos will occur, including chilling effects to create the tyranny of majority.

Thus I would like to propose that no steward is to grant any privileged status if any opposition is being accused as personal attacks, until all involved parties are properly notified to be well mediated. My proposed mediation is to have all involved parties to further discuss why any opposition should or should not be considered personal attacks, including any debates. Simply granting the status without notifying all involved party is not a full discussion, which should be temporarily reversed until the matter is properly mediated.

Anyone who accuses oppositions as personal attacks without exceptionally acceptable reasons deserves proper sanctions.--WEBridge (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there recent examples why this is needed? And what exactly are stewards supposed to do when someone accuses opposing voiced as personal attacks (your mentioned "sanctions")? Why shouldn't it be up to local communities to deal with that? Johannnes89 (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannnes89: Before I give two examples, please advise if we must notify any involved user, who is running for adminship on a wiki. To reply to everyone, I think that whether this RfC passes or not, we should slightly amend Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements to point out where to seek mediation if no steward does it in case of disputes like any candidates for privileged status accusing any oppositions as personal attacks. Maybe U4C?--WEBridge (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local admins are the first instance responsible for personal attacks on a local wiki, no matter if the attacks occur during a user's request for permissions or elsewhere. For most wikis this should be sufficient (unless there are no admins / the only admin is the one attacked in the RfP). There's no reason for stewards to intervene if there are local admins. If local admins fail to deal with such situations, users might file a U4C case.

MVR is about minimum voter requirements, stating how stewards will typically evaluate the result of RfP (keep in mind that this also includes requiring a full discussion if there's opposition). The page is not supposed to give advice on other things like "how to react if I perceive comments as personal attacks", that should be covered by local policies and might vary depending on the project. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannnes89: Your requested examples occurred on Meta more than at Steward_requests/Permissions/2023-04#Ericliu1912@zhwikibooks and Steward_requests/Permissions/2024-11#Ericliu1912@zhwikiquote by being so power-hungry with no sincerity to consider others' opposition, which would also occurred at Steward_requests/Permissions/2025-07#Ericliu1912@zhwikisource. The same candidate is running at q:zh:Wikiquote:申请成为管理员/Ericliu1912/第五次. ~~Should we tell that user about this talk?~~--WEBridge (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notified at q:zh:Wikiquote:申请成为管理员/Ericliu1912/第五次 about this RfC.--WEBridge (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of your examples showed a solid majority, good enough to grant temporary admin permissions. If there are disputes or personal attacks, local admins are the ones responsible to deal with it (or the U4C if there are no local admins / local admins fail to enforce the UCoC). Johannnes89 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see where this is coming from. Just letting it "be up to the local communities" will not work, because this is in the context of an request for rights. At the very least an steward would mark the request on hold until the matter is handled locally. Otherwise, you just have an situation where an disputed request for rights is done by a steward without dealing with the dispute first, making it even harder for the local community to handle.--Snævar (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a request for permissions is disputed, MVR already require a full discussion. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards do not notice disputes on requests for permissions when they are at the wiki that the permissions are requested for. So, if an individual asks for permisions on wiki A, an disagreement happens on wiki A and then there is a request at meta, stewards do not look at wiki A. Not in all cases anyway. Also, the requestee should be required to post on wiki A when he is requesting the rights on meta. Snævar (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One example would be the requests I made against Stefán at is.wikisource. Stefán deleted a notable percentage of is.wikisource pages, both main namespace pages, templates and a few pages in other namespaces. Although he was desysopped eventually, there was very little willingless to discuss it and User:EPIC clearly had a rushed vibe to decisions.--Snævar (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee#Snaevar's_treatment_of_SD0001

In short, I am denying and marking all of Novems claims as false, except that my comments could be more clear.

First of all, the thread on questions for the 2025 U4C Comitee election I posted is solely critisism of the U4C comitee, not SD001 or A09. It is a thread filled with judge would do this, judge would do that. SD and A09 are not judges and it baffles me how anyone would come to the conclusion that a comment like that are about them. SD and A09 are mentioned for two reasons only, one is to delimit the answers I am critisising, and second is to get an second viewpoint so the election comitee is not just taking my comment into consideration. We all know the critism the sister project commitee got in the discussion about wether wikinews should exist for not contacting the wikinews communities. My point was to avoid that. This fact also removes any link to the A09 complaint that the U4C claims it has.

As for the phabricator proportion of Novem's complaint, what I did was on the basis of this fundemental concept:

"This Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. It applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces. This includes new and experienced contributors, functionaries within the projects, event organizers and participants, employees and board members of affiliates and employees and board members of the Wikimedia Foundation." from foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct. More specifically, I want to make it clear that staff and developers do not get to behave in a different way than users do.

Order of events:
SD0001 argues on Deadbeefs bot proposal, comments on a part of that discussion mentioning his idea

SD0001 creates a task for that idea at phab:T396441, Tpt closes it.

SD0001 creates a task to move voterlists to Cloud.

I argue that moving the voterlists to cloud is an bad idea.

I file a request to investigate sd0001, on the grounds of the two previously mentioned tasks.

Novem comments with an bogus claim

One fault of phab:T396441 is that it is an config that affects all wikis, ignoring the pushback of other wikis against universial configs that might only benefit enwiki.

@User:Novem Linguae did not bother listing what kind of harassment he is claiming, but harassment is not an individual violation, but a category of violations, with over 10 possible definitions. He lied that en:WP:Harassment applies, when it is clear that "unclear" comments are not harassment as they are not even mentioned. "Unclear" comments are not either harassment under the U4C policy. The enwiki policy however states that "However, some editors seem to give "harassment" a much broader, and inappropriate, meaning", which may apply and is not in Novem's favor, but English Wikipedia rules are not in effect on phabricator and meta, so I am not going to dwelve deeper into that. Phabricator rules on mw:Code_of_Conduct say "Using the code of conduct system for purposes other than reporting genuine violations of the code of conduct (e.g., retaliating against a reporter or victim by filing a report claiming their response was harassment)" which is a likely violation of Mister Novem. Anyone reading this should read Novem's links, instead of blindly trusting his written text.

Novem then proccedes with comments that are not just false, but also fabrication. My request would not harm securepoll itself, but might make it harder for Novem and SD get patches through if and only if their communication with the other maintainers, T&S, are so bad that they would not review their changes. That kind of lack of communication would entirely be their own fault and I would appreciate not being dragged into problems that have nothing to do with me.

His claim that I am starting something with Securepoll is completely unfounded. I would like to remind Novem that we do not live in the world of Minority report where three psychics reported on possible crimes that had not happened yet. Spoiler alert, as it turned out, even in that movie that system did not work in the end. Novem is not entitled to accusations like these. This is clearly a bad faith assumption and argument, which is against U4C chapter "2.1 Mutual respect", rule "Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits", see foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#2.1_–_Mutual_respect.

As for the U4C comitee, even though Novem did mention the A09 complaint, that complaint only really demanded de-adminship. The fact that U4C comitee whent further than that points to that they where using other, most likely non-logic based, reasons. One of the possible reasons is that they where doing vendetta based on the proposed removal of answers for the last U4C election.

A large portion of the U4C Comitee had a conflict of interest because of these questions for the U4C election, but also Deadbeef for the fact that a portion of his bot request has to do with this case. Despite that he did continue trying to talk to me on my iswiki chatpage, even after my diplomatic answer that he had a conflict of interest. Any comment from anyone of these U4C members should never have been made and the same goes for their votes. Both their comments and votes can only be considered null and invalid. See foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines#3.3.1_Fairness_in_process.

A common problem with what U4C comitee calls arguments is that they do not explain how they got to that conclusion. I expect the U4C comitee to specify the academia that they are basing their comments on, the relevant theories of said academia and how that connects to their comments. For example, they could make two opposing arguments like this:
In philosophy, the philosopher Decartes said that plants and animals other then humans did not have a soul. Therefore, if I kick a dog, the dog has no rights.

In philosophy, the philosopher Socrates brought his theory of materialism. According to materialism, there is no soul, but rather decisions are made with chemistry. In biology, Darwin proved his evolution theory. Biologists James Dewey Watson and Francis Crick then proved that this evolution is based on DNA. There is therefore nothing seperating men and animals that says that animals have less rights than humans.

I consider any comment by the U4C comittee that does not do this to be their own opinions and thus not helpful in this discussion.

I find the U4C comitee and Novem guilty of false accusation and assuming good faith. Additionally I find some of the U4C members guilty of conflict-of-interest (COI). I reccomend a 6 year meta only ban for Novem and non COI U4C members and 9 year ban on the COI U4C members. As for any active U4C cases, T&S will just take them over for the time being. I also demand a full reversal of their actions against me, whith the edit summary "false accusation". Also, move the portion about Novems claim away from the 'Cases/Snævar' and to 'Cases/Snævar 2'. --Snævar (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snævar. Thanks for the ping. I see you have recovered from your w:WP:ANI flu in order to make your first comment on this issue since I commented about it four months ago. I am glad that you are taking this opportunity to tell your side of the story, and I would encourage you to be less silent and to participate more in discussions about your behavior going forward. Also, I would suggest that you apologize to SD0001 for getting him confused with SHB2000 and for being extremely rude to him in our technical spaces with no justification. Finally, courtesy pings to A09 and Dbeef who you mentioned in your comment. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards always check the results of the local request for permissions, that's a requirement before we can grant any permissions, regardless of what the requesting user says on SRP. There's a reason why we insist on users providing a link to the local discussion. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC makes no sense especially since stewards are able to determine what evidence to consider and I haven't seen any recent controversy in this area. Leaderboard (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Leaderboard. This is an oddly specific requirement. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🤔 – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: Seeing your multiple roles as a Meta administrator, a steward, and a member of the U4C, no change to Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements is tolerable as long as other venues exist. Yet let us respect Snævar's support above.--WEBridge (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um what? So if a local community has a discussion, and it concludes with a consensus, we are to override that and refuse if we think that the candidate claims one of their opposers made a personal attack to them? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 23:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Steward_requests/Permissions/2023-04#Ericliu1912@zhwikibooks again with so-called "unreasonable accusations and personal attacks" on Meta, not on a local wiki, which is the most important reason to have this RfC. No steward is being asked about refusing local consensus. This RfC is to politely decline (postpone) something pending mediation of claimed personal attack on Meta.--WEBridge (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That request was closed without controversy. Why would we need a rule to handle a situation that was resolved without issue, without that rule? – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Granting that request was okay. What has never been okay would be so-called "unreasonable accusations and personal attacks" on Meta to create a very dangerous precedent. Then any other similar objections against adminship could be "personal attacks"? Where are other Meta administrators? Then call the U4C?--WEBridge (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Meta have any role in administering what was said on the local project in the context of the RfA? Stewards, in this capacity, are here to implement community consensus. If an RfA has 7 supporters and one opposer (with or without a bizarre reason), then typically the request will be successful. If there are concerns with a personal attack on an RfA, then it can be dealt with by local administrators on that project, or the U4C if local attempts at resolution have failed. No need for any MVR change here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, bro. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 23:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: And as for now, they had oppose my request for administrator on zhwikiquote, purely due to my comment above (which itself was based on their own comment), showing their personal bias against me. I do not think that this ill-intended proposal should have a way forward. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This guy habitually uses opposing votes as a weapon to suppress dissenting voices. We really shouldn't consider any proposals he puts forward regarding elections or any right granting processes. Stewards should already have sufficient capability to conduct reviews. There's no need to add unnecessary restrictions. With all the previous RFCs, how much more of the community's time does the applicant intend to waste? --J.Wong 13:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snævar and Ajraddatz:I disagree "opposing votes as a weapon to suppress dissenting voices". Otherwise, should all objections against someone's request for adminship be personal attacks? Who is "this guy"? Derived from the American quote that ""When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny", I would like to say that "when candidates for adminship fear the voters their is liberty, but when the voters fear the candidates there is tyranny." Please consider how literally "soft on crimes" might happen on certain small wikis.--WEBridge (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

q:zh:Wikiquote:申请成为管理员/Ericliu1912/第五次 just got Ericliu1912 stalking me despite having got 12-month adminship.--WEBridge (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly odd for someone who has admin rights on ~15 wikis claims that a username change prevent any further question on accountability. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 06:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morally Support, this is about steward elections' requirements, not suitable to discuss for other wikis' conflicts, better to start separate RFCs to discuss em. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you read this page and devise that this RfC was about steward election requirements? Genuinely wondering. //shb (t • c) 12:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000 But then? How are these stuffs being related? I'm also interested in reasons why Eric Liu mentioned zhwikiquote's matters, let's discuss the topic of this Meta-Wiki specific matter, not yelling other wikis, thx. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? //shb (t • c) 10:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly so confused. Borschts^Talk 21:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading this discussion multiple times, I still have no idea what the purpose of this RfC is. Feels oddly specific with the goal of this change unclear. //shb (t • c) 12:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the proposal, I can tell what it is asking. It is proposing that if anyone claims that any oppose !vote is a personal attack, then the consensus in the discussion is nullified until we can have a long, drama-filled, philosophical discussion about whether it was actually a personal attack. A terrible idea. Strong oppose House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big misunderstanding. No consensus in the discussion is to be nullified.--WEBridge (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The implementation of consensus would be null and void until we have such a discussion. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is not a very good idea to place the user right nomination (in question) on hold until a brand-new discussion (about votes counting as personal attacks) has concluded. I also agree with HouseBlaster and A09. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tendency to oppose 意味は何？人身攻撃があった場合、主張に問題はないはずなのに、なぜこんなことをするんですか？ What's the point? If there's a personal attack, it's natural to point it out. Why would we do something else like this? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
..? Apologize for the frankness, but this is one of the most useless proposals I've seen so far. Don't even find value in adding a template. If it's a well-reasoned oppose and the candidate chooses to accuse them of personal attacks, then other users can and will decide whether that was appropriate. In most cases, drama with oppose votes reflect poorly on the candidate anyways. Especially considering how brutal RfAs are I don't want to silence the candidate either from making any complaints regarding oppose votes.--Takipoint123 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Sorry but this creates a big backdoor to abuse by stewards (although I trust them all not to) to override closed local discussions that gave result via the most fundamental way of getting things changed on wikiprojects.--A09|(pogovor) 15:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]