Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Commons and UCoC enforcement

Use of sections

@Wilfredor I have moved your comment to the section dedicated to "other feedback". But if you would like to be added to the list of parties we can move that back. Civvì (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved from "Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members" section

@Krd I have moved your comment, you can add yourself to the involved parties or use (and move this) to the "other feedback part. The section "Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members" is not a place for a general discussion. Thanks --Civvì (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a single case, a cold case, with, as it may be, one offender or few offended. U4C appears to be requesting that the Commons community shall establish procedures for this case, i.e. to setup an arbcom, for what is felt like no reason. Commons is broke at all administrative ends and cannot afford additional bureaucratic levels. It cannot be right to spend (and I'd even say to waste) lots of community ressources on a single hurt feeling. Project goal is to build a file repository, not to make everybody everybody feel happy, nor to play justice. With the given approach U4C offends all community members who struggle to keep it running, and the abstract threat to impose measures when none a found appears unbecoming to me. Krd 06:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

(Speaking personally) What U4C is trying to do is give the Commons community some time to reflect and try to incorporate some behavioural aspects in their procedures. There is no mention of "creating an arbcom", there are no "musts" nor too specific requests. There is an infinite range of colours between "making everybody happy" and some of the issues several U4C members are mentioning here. I really cannot understand how the request to try to deal with this could be offending. --Civvì (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand the U4C is saying "Commons community: We give you time to solve the conflict. If you don't solve it, we will impose measures and solve it for you." I understand this as a threat. If U4C's intention is different, please say what it is.

What if the Commons community doesn't even see anything to discuss, not to speak of changing policies and procedures? Is the Commons community currently discussing anything about this case? Krd 11:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a threat, it's an opportunity. We are acknowledging that even though we have scope/jurisdiction to act, Commons is a mature community and we would prefer to try and see if Commons can figure it out themselves. The only downside to Commons not doing so is that we would need to - and that isn't a threat because there is no negativity or harmful consequences implied there. The goal here is simply effective enforcement of the UCoC, and to have the right structures set up to enable that effective enforcement. Even if the Commons community chooses to not do anything, so long as that decision is informed by a fair process, that would be fine (from my view). – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz I think U4C went completely off-track on this one. Are you saying there's a systemic failure to enforce UCoC on commons? I am confused. I mean if there is no high-level decision-making body, then you guys are the ones responsible for enforcing UCoC unless they come up with arbcom. How else do you want Commons to figure it out? If you have a decision or can make one on the case, what exactly are you waiting to change? C:Commons:Arbitration (failed proposal) was rejected in the past. You don't even show how the current process doesn't align with the UCoC and how it can be made to align. Some of the comments from U4C members do read as a call for creation of arbcom on commons. BRP ^ever 17:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

No systemic failure, at least not one that is being examined. Speaking for myself, it doesn't seem like Commons has been set up - in terms of policy and process - to address longer-standing complaints about UCoC compliance. But maybe that isn't the right perspective - the Commons community has examined this case, even taking into account the past history, and has decided no action is needed or appropriate. I don't personally think that policies need to directly reference the UCoC because it applies regardless of references in local documentation.

Absent that, the role of the U4C would be to hear an appeal of the Commons' action on this case (doing nothing). I think that might be the way forward at this stage. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If UCoC applies to all projects why is U4C trying things like delegating this back to Commons in some way (with my leading idea being a panel of Commons administrators) which more or less sounds like a call for arbcom. Why not take this case for what it is and if there is UCoC violation, come up with measures to fix it. If commons think 'only abuse of tools matters for desysop' then why not respect that and base your decision on UCoC violation done with or without the tools. If U4C is not confident that their involvement will help, why not do a survey on commons to see if people actually consider U4C necessary for their local community or will their participation help or not. If not, then maybe it's time to re-think the enforcement guidelines. BRP ^ever 18:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

We certainly could take the case and enact a remedy. The only hesitation is that Commons is a large and established community, and we would like to act with as light a touch as possible. I don't think communities would appreciate it if we run into large, established communities waving around warnings and sanctions without first giving them an opportunity to resolve the issue themselves (and, ideally, having processes - not necessarily an arbcom - that could resolve issues of that nature as a matter of general practice). If Commons indeed will only allow consideration of desysop in cases of tool abuse, and the community isn't open to changing that policy, then it would seem that only the U4C would have jurisdiction in cases like this where an admin is potentially violating the UCoC but not actively abusing their technical access. The enforcement guidelines have been approved by the global movement community - for better or worse they are here, and we can change them with community approval through the annual review process. If Commons feels that the U4C should not have any jurisdiction over them, that is certainly something for consideration next year (and those discussions can begin sooner as well). Edit to add: It looks like the Commons' policy has been changed to consider UCoC violations as possible contributors to a desysop process. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if the violation only concerns tools to begin with. Which leads me back to why I consider U4C completely off-track with the attempt at local policy and procedure changes. I am aware that enforcement guideline are subject to annual review and I understand the hesitation. However, this is the first year, so is it practically possible to enforce UCoC as written in guideline? If not, shouldn't the U4C present it's difficulty and come up with solution or seek one. This specific case isn't even considered a systemic failure yet, while I do see plenty of indication of this being one. Especially by what Krd mentions above which sounds like 'Lack of resources or lack of will to address issues'. If U4C starts accessing the impact and hesitating instead of trying to resolve the issue when they see UCoC violation (not only in this case), nothing will get done. U4C was created to handle difficult cases because if they were easy, it would have been solved locally to begin with. BRP ^ever 19:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Case renamed

As this is now renameed to "Commons and UCoC enforcement", is this no longer "some vs. A.Savin" but now officially "U4C vs. Commons"? Who are the involved parties who can discuss the case, and who speaks for the Commons community? --Krd 04:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The parties to the case have not changed. It was renamed due to concerns raised regarding the case being named after one of the named parties. In general, it seems to be best practice to avoid naming cases after one person. Do you have an alterative name to suggest for the case, if you find this one confusing? – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say if the case is about A.Savin and their behaviour, whatever it is, then it can be named as such, like it was. If the case is about a general lack of anything at Commons, it shouldn't be discussed between few users who are involved is a specific old case, but by the affected community in general. Which one is it?

As sometimes, my direct questions can be understood as offesive, which they aren't meant. I just still foresee surprised faces when the U4C discusses a specific case, which perhaps nobody considers relevant, and then comes up with a general solution which hasn't been discussed at all. I think U4C should determine and elaborate what exactly is the thing between A.Savin and the plaintiffs, if and why this isnn't to be considered as resolved, and what could be a faulty or missing process at Commons. Just saying "Commons, please figure out what may be wrong with you" while Commons sees nothing wrong with itself and no objective problem has been articulated, doesn't appear as a reasonable approach to me. Krd 06:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, we will consider this and your feedback on future proposed solutions would be appreciated. Apologies as well for my own comment, reading back the "if you find this one confusing" sounds more inflamatory than intended. I'm more interested personally in how to find the balance between having useful case names while also not having prejudicial case names. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

From my perspective we gave an actionable item: incorporate the UCoC into decisions around admins. And I think the Commons community did what we asked of them here. What remains is whether any conduct of parties need specific sanction or if we can leave that together the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to second the remarks by Krd. It remains entirely unclear what this case is about. Is it about a specific case about an admin that for whatever reason has been escalated to UCoC enforcement or about a supposed inadequacy of Commons policies?

In regard to c:COM:DESYSOP, please notice that a reference to wikimedia:Universal Code of Conduct has now been added per this discussion. But please keep in mind we had de-sysops at Commons before because of incivilities (example). --AFBorchert (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Why don't you ask the one who started it all? I also would like to know what this case is about... if he bothers to explain... Unfortunately I cannot ask him myself because he does not interact with me... --A.Savin (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: The page has been moved by Civvì, one of the members of the Coordinating Committee. Unfortunately without giving a reason in the comment nor anywhere here. I just see the comment by Civvì attesting Commons to be “in general a hostile environment within the project” without providing any evidence for this. Hence, the question remains: Is this about the behaviour of one admin at Commons or about assumed structural problems at Commons. This to clarify remains the sole responsibility of the Coordinating Committee. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin given the assurance you gave us I'd hope you have some idea of what this case is about. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry no, I don't. Civility is not a one-way street, so if the plaintiff is not willing to communicate with me in a civilized way, I cannot help further. --A.Savin (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think civility is not a choice being an admin (UCoC 3.2). And the case has imo two parts, one having been addressed: having your own civility rules at Commons to be able to take care of those issues locally, in principle. The next issue is your specific behaviour as an admin, which will not be tolerated, if it continues. The renaming of this case was a test to see if it is perceived as less escalating if we remove user names from the title. That seems not to be the case. Ghilt (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Useless to discuss here anything. I'm out. Pings on Meta I'm going to switch off now. --A.Savin (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very cooperative. Is your promise still valid? Ghilt (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

We're not on a marketplace with warranty or something. If I say "I try", I try, but in the end I'm only human too. EOD --A.Savin (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the test over now? This rename has done nothing but cause confusion, and given there is current discussion to bring another case regarding Commons to the U4C, it’s just going to be even more confusion if that case will be brought up here. 1989 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Update

Here is an extra climbing, this edit made by A.Savin [1] on his user page led to this deletion request created by 1989, led to a report about 1989 (and a request for a block) in the administrative noticeboard. You can put into perspective A.Savin words "So my logical suggestion is: Please reject this complaint. I wish to be left alone by 1989" and the fact that A.Savin is responsible for this additional step while 1989 actually left him alone. This seems to be a successful provocation by A.Savin. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Eine weitere Lüge und Verleumdung meiner Person durch 1989's Kumpel Christian Ferrer -- wenn man sich nämlich die umseitige Versionsgeschichte anschaut, sieht man sofort, dass ich bis zuletzt keineswegs von 1989 "in Ruhe gelassen" worden war -- am 29. Mai, 13. Juli und gerade erst 24. Juli wurden weitere Pranger-Difflinks gegen mich hinzugefügt, teils mit offensichtlich unwahren Behauptungen -- etwa, dass ein Kommentar meinerseits ein Angriff auf den COM:ANU Melder darstellen soll, obwohl gerade der Melder im Fall Eatcha sich hat nichts zu Schulden kommen lassen und dementsprechend niemals von mir in irgend einer Form angegriffen worden sein kann. Dieses Schmierentheater wird unerträglich. Ist Wikimedia-Universum, für das ich jahrzehntelang gewissenhaft gearbeitete habe, überhaupt noch mein Projekt, wenn sowas hier toleriert wird? --A.Savin (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This page is clearly intended for checking allegations, A.Savin, similar to local noticeboards. Your user page claiming harassment linking to this case in combination with a very unfriendly picture is another escalation. You need to improve your choice of words & pictures to not make the impression of an attempted victim-perpetrator-reversal ("Täter-Opfer-Umkehr"). Ghilt (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Täter-Opfer-Umkehr, köstlich. Bist du sicher, dass du auch einen kühlen Kopf stets hättest bewahren können, wenn du so wie ich über Jahre von einem Anonymous, gegen den du in keinster Weise vorgehen kannst, weil er sich eben komfortabel unter seiner feigen Anonymität versteckt, beleidigt, gequält und gezielt in den Suizid getrieben wirst, weil er davon träumt, eines Tages auf deinem Grab einen Tanz abzuhalten? Wirklich? Kann es sein, dass du schlicht und einfach nicht weißt, wie es ist, in so eine verfickte Situation zu geraten, in die ich Pech habe geraten zu sein? Wenn du jahrelang selbstlos fürs Projekt arbeitest und damit "belohnt" wirst, dass jemand aus völlig unerklärlichen Gründen aus dir einen Staatsfeind macht? Genau, was würdest du denn selber machen? Sag mit bloß nicht, du wärest ein Superman mit Flügeln, der solche 1989's oder Christian Ferrer's mit dem Frühstückskaffee verschlingt, das glaube ich sowieso nicht... --A.Savin (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Nee, sicher bin ich mir nicht. Aber selbst wenn: ein Unrecht rechtfertigt kein Zweites. Das Zweite ist nämlich die Wort- und Bildsprache, die du verwendest. "Schlampen" ist kein akzeptabler Ausdruck, selbst wenn der Adressat offen bleibt. Dieser Fall ist auch keine "verfickte" Situation, sondern eine Seite, bei der geklärt werden soll, ob an den Anschuldigungen etwas dran ist. Deine Benutzerseite unterstützt sie. Deine Wortwahl auch. Du weißt, was der UCoC von Admins erwartet. Das geht so nicht weiter. --Ghilt (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: No, I'm not sure. But even if: one wrong does not justify a second. The second is the word and image language you use. "Sluts" is not an acceptable term, even if the addressee remains open. This case is also not a "fucking" situation, but a page to clarify whether there is something to the accusations. Your user page supports them. Your choice of words too. You know what the UCoC expects of admins. This will not go on like this. Ghilt (A) (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Ghilt (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Die Benutzerseite ist mir egal. Die kann meinetwegen auch gelöscht werden. Das Einzige, was mir nicht egal ist, ist die Möglichkeit Content beizutragen ohne gestalkt und verleumdet zu werden. Diese Möglichkeit wird mir von 1989 und Ferrer gamz gezielt genommen. Wie wäre es damit, auch deren Wortwahl in Betracht zu ziehen? Oder -- ich wiederhole gern nochmal meine Frage -- soll hier exklusiv über mich gerichtet werden?

Der politische Poster im Bild bezieht sich offensichtlich auf gewisse Politiker. 1989 scheint ja implizit auch den Ukraine-Angriffskrieg zu unterstützen, wenn er mir ausgerechnet daraus einen Strick drehen will, dass ich mal (tatsächlich impulsiv und unüberlegt) einen User versucht habe zu sperren, der in einem (allerdings nicht einsehbarem, da später versionsgelöschten) Kommentar ganz offen den Krieg und den Massenmord an ukrainischen Zivilisten gutgeheißen hatte. Von etlichen anderen Usern hatte ich damals Dankeschön-Notifications hierfür bekommen, auch wenn die Aktion außer Prozess gewesen war. --A.Savin (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Natürlich kannst du jede Wortwahl Anderer hier zur Sprache bringen und wir werden uns die ansehen. Nochmals, bestimmte Funktionsseiten wie diese sind dafür da, Vorwürfe zu prüfen. Das ist so beabsichtigt. Die Formel nach 3.2 zur Überprüfung der Wortwahl lautet "nicht respektlos, gemein oder gewalttätig". --Ghilt (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: Of course, you can bring up any choice of words from others here and we'll look at them. Again, certain functional pages like this are there to investigate allegations. That is so by intention. The formula for checking the word choice is "not disrespectful, cruel or violent". Ghilt (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Direkt drunter fordert der Account Christian Ferrer gar meinen Globalen Ban. Das ist eine völlig neue Qualität selbst im Vergleich zu allem, was man bisher so kennt. Kann mir bitte jemand sagen, warum er meinen Ban fordert? Bisher hatte ich ja gedacht, zur Not verliert man halt seinen Adminstatus oder gibt ihn selber ab und gut isses, das ist zwar zur Pflege von Inhalten ein Nachteil, aber nicht so die große Aufregung wert -- außer natürlich, dass ich keine Lust habe dazu, diejenigen sich an ihrem "großen Sieg" aufgeilen zu sehen, die Wikimedia-Projekte als Schlachtfeld und Rollenspiel mit Machtspielchen und Intrigen betrachten. Aber sei's drum. Jetzt wird, nach all den Jahren, nach all der investierten Lebenszeit, all den Inhalten, all den Mühen einfach gefordert, ich solle global ausgeschlossen werden. Ein unglaublicher Vorgang, ein Akt so ungeheuerlicher Respektlosigkeit und Zynismus, dass man geradezu schreien möchte. Nochmal: Womit habe ich das verdient? Soll hier exklusiv über mich gerichtet werden, oder macht sich das Hohe Gericht doch noch Mühe, auch Aussagen anderer Commons-Admins und -Nichtadmins unter die Lupe zu nehmen?

Also nochmal die wesentlichen Fragen. Ich werde als Aggressor beleidigt. Es wird mein Ban gefordert, ohne zu nennen, gegen welche UCoC-Punkte ich verstoßen haben soll, und selbst wenn, inwiefern das eine so schwerwiegende Maßnahme wie einen Globalen Ban erfordert. Kann mir bitte jemand sagen warum? Kann mir bitte jemand sagen, wie das abgestellt werden kann? Wenn jemand "nur" fordert, mich zu desysoppen, kann man das theoretisch ja damit abstellen, dass man den Flag selbst abgibt. Aber wie kann man es abstellen, dass jemand aus niederen Motiven dazu aufruft, dich einfach so auszuschließen, nach jahrelanger inhaltlicher Arbeit in besten Absichten einfach so von einem Moment auf den Anderen plötzlich vor einem riesigen Schutthaufen da zu stehen? --A.Savin (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Fordern kann Jeder und wir besprechen dann in der Regel, ob ein Vorschlag angemessen für das Problem und verhältnismäßig ist. Du kannst die Chance im Vergleich zu global gebannten Benutzern selbst abschätzen. --Ghilt (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: Anyone can ask for a ban and we will usually discuss whether a proposal is appropriate for the problem and proportionate. You can estimate the chances yourself by comparing to globally banned users. Ghilt (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Wie meinst du das "kannst die Chance im Vergleich zu global gebannten Benutzern selbst abschätzen"? Es gab User, bei denen der Ban schon abzusehen war, Andere wiederum wurden völlig überraschend ausgeschlossen, wie unlängst Commons:User:Tulsi. Es gibt kaum einen intransparenteren Prozess, als Globaler Ban durch die WMF. Gründe werden ja auch nicht offengelegt. Ich kann mithin die Chance weder im Vergleich noch ohne Vergleich absehen. --A.Savin (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Das ist ein Trust&Safety ban wegen Informationen, die uns nicht vorliegen. Hier liegen ja die Informationen vor. --Ghilt (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: That's a Trust & Safety ban due to information we do not have. In this case we have the information in public. Ghilt (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• I must add that until now I was thinking A.Savin unworthy by his behavior to be administrator, I'm even starting to wonder if his behavior is simply compatible and/or acceptable for the Wikimedia projects. To the extent that after each insult and provocation made by him he persists in crying out about victimization (here we hit the jackpot as we have the 3 at same time: [2]). Victimization is on a human scale a tactic well known to aggressors of all kinds. It seems to me that inevitably, to be stopped, A. Savin would have to be banned from the Wikimedia projects at a time or another. The only thing that A.Savin had to do was to keep a low profile until the case is open again, that's a fact he is not able to do that, all is said. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Wenn ich neuerdings gar als "Aggressor" beschimpft werde, dann ist es ganz sicher bis zum "Nazi" nicht mehr weit... Ist Meta eigentlich ein rechtsfreier Raum? Für das, was Christian Ferrer sich an persönlichen Angriffen erlaubt, wäre er z.B. in der Deutschen Wikipedia schon längst indef gesperrt ohne Anfechtungsmöglichkeit. Aber so kann ich wirklich nur noch Kopfschütteln. Ich möchte einfach produktuv beitragen für Commons, Bilder hochladen, ich möchte nicht gestört und nicht beschimpft werden. Ist das wirklich so schwer zu verstehen? Ich meine nicht Christian Ferrer -- da besteht offenbar keine Hoffnung mehr -- aber gibt es hier auf Meta keinen einzigen Admin, der solche Beschimpfungen irgendwie problematisch findet, geschweige denn sperrwürdig? --A.Savin (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hinzuzufügen wäre übrigens ja noch, dass Christian Ferrer genau wie ich Admin auf Commons ist. Und da der umseitige Fall ja untersuchen soll, ob persönliche Angriffe bzw. unzivile Kommentare mit der (vermeintlichen) Vorbildfunktion eines Admins vereinbar ist, hier folglich die Frage: Werden die obigen schweren persönlichen Angriffe Christian Ferrers gegen mich auch in die Bewertung einbezogen, entsprechend auch die Bewertung seines Admin-Status? Oder soll hier exklusiv über mich gerichtet werden? Die Angriffe beinhalten auch neuerdings den Aufruf zu meinem Globalen Ban -- etwas, was ich selbst übrigens weder jemals für Christian Ferrer noch für 1989 gefordert hatte, bei all den Angriffen und Stänkereien. Frage ergeht an das Hohe Gericht @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 --A.Savin (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin Christian Ferrer provided evidence for why he thinks you were an aggressor and did not call you a Nazi. You present counter evidence for why you were not an aggressor. That is all OK. Suggesting that because he called you an aggressor he might then call you a Nazi is, from my perspective, something which increases the conflict. Further from my point of view, writing evidence on the case page does not contradict with "leaving you alone". 1989 is not spreading the conflict to a new place with the July posts, though I understand how you can feel differently about the U4C election questions.

Beyond that I will say that the U4C is watching both the deletion discussion and the notice board discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Add A. Savin blocking me for two weeks because I voted to delete his attack page to that. The guys an unhinged bully and should just be globally blocked at this point. The idea that there's any kind of standards for administrator conduct on Commons is laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Welch eine tendenziöse Darstellung der Sachlage. Es gibt eine bis dato immernoch offene ANU-Beschwerde. Und es gab den Editwar, bei denen du eine völlig legitime administrative Behaltensentscheidung im Editwar-Modus zu verhindern versucht hattest. Später hat denn auch ein anderer Admin genauso entschieden. Und ja, niemand hatte sich getraut, diese ANU zu schließen. Denn die einzige folgerichtige Entscheidung wäre es eben gewesen dich für diesen Editwar zu sperren, aber weil du so ziemlich bei jedem Konflikt und Drama mit dabei bist und schon so ziemlich alle Admins "befangen" gemacht hast, hat sich eben keiner mehr getraut. In so einem Fall muss halt jemand ran, der seinen Adminstatus eh demnächst verlieren wird und insofern nichts mehr zu befürchten hat. So ist halt das Leben hier auf Wikimedia-Projekten. --A.Savin (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

That's why you did it five minutes after I left a negative comment about you in the DR when you had been active on the ANU board most of the time the complaint had been open and didn't do anything about it until right after I made the comment. I could care less if GPSLeo agrees with the block. It's damn near impossible to appeal blocks on there. Especially ones that were placed as part of involved editing by an administrator or done due to a conflict with one. You guys act like perpetual victims and will endlessly defend each other no matter how erroneous the action is. GPSLeo is no different. He's going to side with you and Josve05a regardless of if the block has any merit to it or not. Just like he did with the U4C case. "Wait a minute, your telling me administrators on Commons don't give one iota about involved editing and will defend each other no matter what? Color me shocked!" --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Another worrying thing put on light by this update is how to react the Wikimedia Commons to an obvious wrong behavior, especially for an administrator: at best Wikimedia Commons is inactive but worse there is a potential support. If either one was curious why 1989 opened a case here don't search anywhere else. I'm sad about that but it becomes obvious to me that Wikimedia Commons, despite the size of the project, don't have the maturity to handle that kind of case. And if either A.Savin wonder for why, after years, after our conflict within INeverCry case, I still oppose him, the answer can not be better illustrated here. I can't stand injustice, despite A.Savin did not misuse their administrator's tool, 1989 suffered pressure, insult, and even the eventuality of a block, directly because of an action made by A.Savin. A.Savin has is own agenda, he wanted to highlight "his case" here, and accentuate victimization, he also made some kind of trolling but that was not sufficiant, so he made the modification of his user page, he is smart and experienced enough to know that this action will make noise. No matter if at the same time he insult one or more users, no matter if he is increasing a conflict, no matter if 1989 get some pressure including one of a block, I guess that last thing though not especialy premeditated is a kind of "icing on the cake". And all this is unfair, unfair and sad. I am not even particularly a friend of 1989, here was my last interaction and although cordial it was not particularly friendly or warm, but even if we had disagrement I respect 1989 as an user/individual. So this is why after years I still oppose A.Savin, I had somewhat good relations with him, until INeverCry case 8 years ago, where we began to had disagrements, very likely I have been a few time myself clumsy and emotional and maybe a little rude, but not so often and I hope I have evolved a little and anyway I don't see in what it can be kind of beginging of excuse for current A.Savin behavior. I learned that in case of disagreement with A.Savin, you can pass very very quicky from good relations towards to be considered/insulted as a "b..." as it have been well illustrated by him in his user page. So yes, still now, when I saw someone potentially victim of A.Savin behavior, I stand up. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also the edit made by A.Savin on his user page that way tend to complicate a bit more the situation and therefore to promote the status quo which on Wikimedia Commons is currently obvioulsy rather to its advantage. An unjust situation itself against which I also protest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I sent A.Savin an email to see if he would be willing to reduce the block to a week since I thought it would be way to show the U4C he's willing to admit to his mistakes and correct them. Apparently emailing an adminstrator to ask them a question about a block is blackmail though lmao. The guys certainly his own special kind of sensitive. That's for sure. Even if he doesn't get blocked over this he should at least not be an admin. He has zero business being one if he's just going to go on tirades or throw around accusations when someone he blocks emails him about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I just traduced some of German comments made by A.Savin. Seriously? provocations don't work, victimisation reversing don't work, so now we have that, is that emotional blackmail and thinly veiled legal threats? Will anyone end up stopping this toxic behavior? whether for the good of the user himself or of the community. And when you read that comment made by Krd a bit above, a bureaucrat and one of the most experienced administrator of Wikimedia Commons, you understand, that it is very unlikely that a potential solution will comes from Wikimedia Commons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  And to clarify my expression "emotional blackmail", I am not heartless and certain words must of course be taken very seriously. However very sorry but when you see someone using the word "Selbstmord" followed by legal threats, all this after to have insulted 1989, me? every one? of "bitches" on his user page you can more than legitimately ask the question. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry to come by episode, but I'd also like to point that this is not the first time that A.Savin made legal threat, for which I requested unsuccessfully a de-adminship. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Christian Ferrer: From what I've read they aren't willing to de-admin someone outside of them committing actual murder at this point, largerly because of how badly A.Savin's de-adminship proposel went. So this will only be dealt with through the U4C. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Adamant1 While I think to have understood the general meaning of your comment, I also think that some very serious words such as "m..." should be avoided as much as possible. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Christian Ferrer: Fair enough. That was the wording an administrator used in the discussion about it that I'm referring to though and I try not to misquote people. Oh wait, I'm sorry the word was "criminality." I think the point stands anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Look, Christian Ferrer, since you yourself even mentioned the INeverCry (INC) case, even though you'd always avoided it. I was almost about to thank you for this, it's nothing short of a revelation. Sure, what better reason could there be for all this hatred, indeed this injustice towards me, rather than this ancient case of an incredibly low fallen ex-admin?

You openly sympathized with INC. That's okay so far. INC used to be a productive contributor until some point. He openly admitted somewhere that he suffered from a mental disorder, that he was manic-depressive. That's okay, too. Show me even one diff link where I claimed (whether related to INC or not) that an anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, ADHD, or anything else a priori precludes productive and non-toxic collaboration on Wikimedia projects! That's right, there isn't one. So you'll never find one. And consequently, you won't find a single diff link where I blamed INC for his illness. Because I never did. And never had an idea to do. However as time went by, INC more and more got entangled in conflicts, which in itself could have been avoided. I don't feel like searching for all the ancient diff links where he insulted me too. Whether it was provoked or unprovoked, I don't remember. Meanwhile it doesn't matter anyway. At a certain point, INC's rule-breaking behavior became so rampant that he completely lost control of himself and was banned indefinitely. Later, it emerged that he was also engaging in massive sock puppet abuse, even with a sock that once made it to admin status. The sock was revealed and blocked, INC was globally banned by community resolution, and later even by the WMF. Once again: INC is a globally banned user. He is completely unwelcome on Wikimedia projects, regardless of a username or account used, and will certainly never return, never be "rehabilitated" or anything. After his ban, he also committed mass vandalism to take revenge, for example, on my uploads, on userpages of various admins, even on yours!! INC is a unique example of how low one can sink. It probably doesn't go any lower; it's like a freezing point, which is physically impossible to fall below; or like the Shoah, which no other genocide in human history can even come close to; or "faster-than-light", if you like. And this old, disgraceful story with INC is still reason enough for you to despise me so much? Like, "if A.Savin weren't there, INC would never have ended up where he did"? Really, Christian?

No, even though I'm by no means infallible in general, even though I've undoubtedly made numerous mistakes and stupid things: I fully support the INC ban. Of the bans imposed by the WMF Office so far, this is probably the most correct and uncontroversial one. You can try as much as you like to blame on me INC bullying or whatever. I can't help it that he's sunk so low. I had conflicts with him, but they weren't the reason, to no significant extent. If you claim something like that, I don't believe you. And I sincerely hope no one will.

Actually, none of this above would be worth mentioning if you hadn't brought it up yourself in this unpleasant context. So you stood by INC until the very end, even after he was already engaging in sock puppet abuse. That said, you obviously made a huge mistake. INC was banned by the WMF, so it's obvious that I was right in this case (albeit subconsciously at first; you may guess that I could never have foreseen how low he would sink) and you made a mistake. That's usually not worth talking about. We're all human, we all make mistakes. So instead of admitting it, you've had unfinished business with me since the conflicts surrounding INC. That's probably also the reason why you're so keen on framing me (just like 1989 does, but unlike in your case, his motives are a mystery to me) for various ancient (about 10-year-old) actions or comments. For example, the comment to Smial, which I'm ashamed of today and which I would never have expressed in that form today. As a supposedly justice-loving person, do you really think that's fair to me? Or do you find it unfair in general, but simply think that I, as a person, am so bad that I — unlike others — deserve this injustice?

And I'm generally amazed at how we can even begin to talk about justice here. Suppose we were in court IRL, and I were the defendant. I don't know how it's like in practice these days, but we all know it from books, movies, etc. There's always a lawyer present, sometimes just a public defender, but sometimes one who can perhaps perform a "miracle". Because a legal process always gives the defendant the right to defend themselves, to be heard. But we're not in a real court here. We're on Wikimedia projects. There are no lawyers here. Even if I had the money and connections to hire the best lawyer in the world, I couldn't, or it wouldn't have done me any good on here. On the other hand, here on Wikimedia projects we have something else that doesn't exist IRL. The key word is: transparency. Nothing more, nothing less. On Wikimedia, everything is public, everything can be read. No matter how old it is. In my case, this naturally means that I can be accused of any old comments when it comes down to it. And this is used extensively on the reverse side. But transparency also means that you can read absolutely EVERYTHING. Not just the comments, but also the context. Let me give you an example: Among the collected diff links from 2020, there is one where I am accused of having called someone an idiot. That's true to a certain extent. But is there also a link there where you could easily look up what the user called an "idiot" had actually done, which ultimately led to me eventually only being able to call him an "idiot"? Obviously not. And that is, yes, that is actually THE great injustice that is going on here. Only towards me. The transparency that we have is being abused to deliberately and selectively demonize and dehumanize another user. Of course, it's not being said that this user's activities are perhaps 99.5 percent correct, flawless, and useful to the project, and that only the rest -- every 200th action -- is wrong. Everything is presented as if all I've come up with is nonsense, harassment, and insults. My arguments have not been addressed at all for a long time. It seems for you and for 1989 I'm wrong by default. None of you ever talks to me, only about me. That's exactly what you do. I feel dehumanized by this kind of treatment. I feel extremely unfairly treated. Unfair in the absolute sense, unfair even compared to, say, INC, with whom you still seem to maintain friendly relations, but who has caused light-years more damage to the Wikimedia projects in the last few days of his activity than I have in my almost 20 years here. That's exactly what sucks.

I'm an "aggressor" to you, even though 99 percent of my work here consists of taking+selecting+uploading+categorizing images. I'm supposed to have "threatened legal action", even though it's obvious I can't threaten with something I don't even have, where I don't have the power to do. Recently, I'm even supposed to be banned globally, even though it hasn't been explained which points of the UcoC I'm supposed to have violated, and to what extent. Now I can't even get a new camera, which is long overdue. Because I can't be even sure that the WMF, the U4C, or whoever makes the decisions won't grant your request without using Common sense first. I no longer have the strength to edit and upload the hundreds of pending photos from the past year; I can't be sure that at some point I won't be banned at the behest of you and 1989, and everything turns to be for nothing. At the same time, another user is openly and shamelessly calling me a "paranoid cry bully", and you're perfectly fine with that. That's certainly the kind of "justice" you so desire and are currently enjoying to the fullest, isn't it, Christian?

All of this is so unfair, hypocritical, and bigoted that it literally makes you want to scream. I simply want people to assume good faith towards me; I don't want to be constantly dehumanized just because I wasn't kind enough to someone at some points. I have empathy. I can't work for long in a place where I expect zero empathy in return. But I get along well with, or could get along well with, the vast majority of people here. You are the minority, Christian and 1989 and Adamant1. You are a blatant minority, but an extremely loud minority, that's the problem. I hope that whoever is going to decide on my future on Wikimedia projects will listen not only to the loud minority, but also to the quiet voices of reason from those who simply don't have time for all the intrigue and drama, preferring to use their time for more productive work in the spirit of sharing Free Knowledge. May this be my last statement, as I'm done and don't have any strength anymore. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You are the minority, Christian and 1989 and Adamant1. To quote Chris.sherlock "this sounds like you are threatening Adamant1....I read the email you were sent, and it wasn't in any way hostile, and it certainly wasn't trying to harass you."

To quote A.Savin "I have respect for mostly fair judgment of Chris.sherlock." I rest my case. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• [Sorry if some of the text seems poorly structured, or certain sentence difficult to understand, English is not my language, and long textes are for me a bit hard to write.]

A.Savin I have just read the beginging of the text, but sorry I'm going to write this answer without to have read entirely the text. Those who will read me will understand why. I mentioned INeverCry case because it was indeed at this period that we had our first oppositions, and a lot of users, you included, always said since all those years that my actions was a kind of revenge/extension of conflict, as evidence: [3]. However, apparenlty none of those persons, you included, seems consider for all these years that I'm really sincere when I say that such behavior is: firstly not really adequate for a Wikimedia project user, secondly the exact opposite of what an administrator should behave like. And I'm trully sincere, these are really my values and I defend them. And furthermore, these are my values in addition of to be part of the TOU of our project just in parentheses. So yes I mentioned here INeverCry because this is a fact, this is what I am always told as an argument, included by you, when I try to question your behavior. And you just have proven it by doing it one time again. So yes for once it was me who mentioned it, but just because I know that is is part of your usual argument to try to keep me silent. True, it was at that time that I became convinced that at minimum your behavior is not administrator compatible, true, I have been a few time undoubtedly very clumsy, true, I probably reacted emotionally after some the comments of some members of Wikimedia Commons about INC, true, the timeline never helped me to get out of the shadow "INeverCry", but also true that this phenomenon has been exploited and accentuated by you and your defenders. I quote what you said in your first sentence above "even though you'd always avoided it.", excepted that I did not avoid it, all I had to say to you I already said it to you, so if I did not mentioned it anymore, it is just because I had/have nothing more to say about that.

So once and for all, if I ever reproached you for anything at the time about INC I don't even remember what it was. And if I ever reproached you for anything at the time about INC and that I did it in a rude/impolite or clumsy manner, I offer you my most sincere apologies. This is old and I don't even remember who did what, and I don't care anymore. You are right I myself even mentioned it but it was just to show to every one that, as you have often done [you or other people who defended you, and maybe they even influenced you badly that way], you use it either as a justification for you behavior or to keep me silent. And you proved me right: you wrote a substantial text on these INC events [the part I stopped reading] but nothing about what you recently did: 1/provocation, 2/insult, 3/ you put deliberately 1989 in a difficult situation, because as experienced as you are you could not ignore that he would react, 4/ intimidation, 5/ emotional blackmail.

So I mentioned INeverCry, it's true, but it was the one and only time so I'll be grateful that you (or whoever) stop to talk to me from now on, and, once and for all, about INC when I question your behavior A.Savin.

I was not interacting with you at all recently, I just stated my point of view while making it clear from the start that I was in conflict and therefore potentially not fully neutral. And that's all, I didn't intend to do anything more.

But you modified your user page and 1989 nominated it for deletion, and I knew right away that 1989 was going to find himself in a complicated situation and I found that unfair, very unfair. And this has nothing to do with a potential old conflict. I honestly found it unfair, so I quicky added a notice/update here and quicky commented in Commons admin. noticeboard.

Look at my first and only comment in the case page, I quote "(...) as an user he has often been quicker to inflame a conflict/disagreement than to calm it down", if I say you prove me right, sorry, but it's an understatement.

If you think I'm happy, think again, me the first, and sometimes alone against all, and from a long time, I tried to make you understand that your behavior is/was not right. And here we are. If one day you take a step back, you will see that sometimes our true friends are those who strongly oppose, not those who encourage you to be stubborn. I don't know the outcome to this, what solution this committee can enforce, but I wash my hands of it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like A.Savin restricted my talk page access on Commons after Chris said he was threatening me and I replied to him here. Apparently that's the level of petty this guy's at. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the comment, but I don't think it goes far enough - I don't think any value is added noting how petty someone may or may not be. You (and others here) have been skirting the line of productive discussion and I would appreciate if all could, despite the high emotions here, remain slightly more civil on this case page. And consider that if you have said your bit, you can step back and let others discuss. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I was kind of hoping that if I let you guys know about his behavior on Commons that you'd something about it since he's largely acting this way due to the U4C case. As opposed to him just continuing to freak out and be disruptive until you guys feel getting this going again. I can drop it if you prefer he just threaten users and abuse his admin tools until this is dealt with though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Deadline passed

So.... are we resuming this case? 2025-07-31 has passed, and we have some fresh drama plucked from some grapevines now. —Matrix (_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk?) 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This case is badly needed, it's only going to get worse the longer the U4C waits. I understand that they are swamped with cases, but this needs to move forward, as does the other commons case. All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

We are working on how we're going to re-open it now. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Advanced permissions

Could you give a list of the user groups they fall under advanced permissions? Admin, bureaucrat, oversight and checkuser is clear. What is with technical rights like interface and translation admin? And the lower level rights like template editor or patroller? GPSLeo (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

We used the definition of the UCoC. We will discuss your question and get back to you. Ghilt (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Are users without advanced permissions, whatever that may be, free to engage in disrespectful, cruel, and/or violent behaviour towards other people? Krd 11:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Krd, of course not! But admins must be better than the minimum standard for all users. Ghilt (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Moved from the front page

--Ghilt (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this report is quite biased against A.Savin. In some of the issues reported in the 2025 above, A.Savin is actually right (notably the case of Riad Salih). I feel 1989 that has opened this more as a personal revenge than as a genuine concern for A.Savin's behavior. More generally removal of admin right should be decided locally, except when a user is globally banned. Yann (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann, I had that revenge suspicion right after this request was filed and wrote that on the front page. But for this motion we only looked at the past months since the promise to improve, not at the time before. Ghilt (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Now this is a revelation like no other comment here before. Don't you see what you actually intended to tell? This all case is based on nothing but revenge and retaliation towards mine. Exactly what I tried to make clear all the time. And now you de facto confirm all that in a couple of words. Is it really just me who is reading it like this?

As said many times before, we are all humans and make mistakes -- this applies not exclusively to myself and this is excusable for nearly everyone... So yes, this was a clear mistake by you guys to even accept this "lawsuit" in the 1st place -- but does that really mean that it's an appropriate way2go to process it further and further after months and eventually punish exclusively me, although if ever someone should be punished for incivilities at this point then that's surely not only me here?

My very last appeal. Please do not forget that Wikimedia projects are volunteers' projects for supporting Free Knowledge. Wikimedia projects are not a MMORPG (no matter what some people think). Wikimedia staff should encourage users who contribute freely licensed content. Wikimedia staff should NOT encourage users who misuse Wikimedia projects as a battlefield for personal vendetta or something. Please show respect and do something right one time. If you guys have anyway the opinion that my sysop status on Commons should be reconsidered but do not trust the Commons Community to decide that, okay, at least make an open poll about that here on Meta...so that not only Commons but also users of Wikipedia in various languages, Wikidata etc.pp. may built their opinion on the matter -- should a simple majority out of maybe like 40, 50, 60 users decide against me, I'm fine with that... But please do not do injustice, and please do not set that fatal precedent of an obviously non-democratic procedure concerning a clearly good-faith user in a case filed in bad faith. --A.Savin (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The same is written on the front page. And the base is not the revenge part. It's your behaviour. If the motion passes, you will not be blocked, but you will loose the adminship for a year. Your promise was imo well-intended, but the practise was by far insufficient. Legal threats and repeated incivilities are really not ok for an admin. We have talked about this. Ghilt (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

"you will not be blocked, but you will loose the adminship for a year"...how merciful from you... --A.Savin (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi A.Savin, our decision focuses on UCoC violations and their enforcement. I understand if you are upset that the only enforcement we have published at this stage only concerns you and no other people, but that is based on the amount of evidence we have collected and reviewed. It is certainly fine to believe that there are more UCoC violations on Commons that are handled poorly, but I don't believe is a valid reason to suggest we can't do something about your case.

A user can operate in good faith yet violate the UCoC. If your behavior does not improve after our clear warning to you, enforcement is not avoidable. dbeef (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Local decisions on sanctions

A formal question on how the decision works: Can the community on Commons freely decide to sanction any party of a case beyond the decision the U4C made? We discussed an interaction ban but postponed the implementation for the U4C decision. Now the decision does not include an interaction ban (I honestly do not understand why). Can we locally decide to implement an interaction ban? GPSLeo (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You are not neutral, so you’re in no position to be implementing anything. 1989 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, UCoC enforcement is ideally meant to happen at the most local level possible, so the Commons community is free to impose its own sanctions, in line with Commons’ policies and procedures. BRP ^ever 14:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G.'s "evidence"

This is a new quality to all these already highly kafkaesk allegations. Me and copyright violation? I have not a single one time in my life uploaded a stolen image on any Wikimedia project, believe it or not. That "evidence" by Jeff G. is based on his report of Kürschner, and that one is based on a couple of of images where Kürschner simply had forgotten to add a license tag, but where we don't have a reason to believe otherwise they are stolen copyvios or even bad-faith uploads: this one and a couple of similar photos. I hadn't closed that report by Jeff G.: the closing sysop was User:Achim55 and his closing comment was: "Not done: Uploader just forgot to add a license tag. Many thanks to Kürschner for his highly valuable contributions during the past 16 years!" Which I can only second in relation to that report. Yes, Kürschner seemingly had uploaded a falsely licensed image back in Sept 2024, which then was subsequently deleted by Yann. Still this is no reason for me to believe several months later that recent uploads by Kürschner were copyvios too. If this is a reason for Jeff G. to believe that without further evidence, then Jeff G. never should become a sysop on Commons, simple as is. --A.Savin (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the front page definitely needs to be closed for all not U4C members and this talk page limited to technical questions. The discussions need to stop and the U4C should make the decision. These discussions do more damage than any unfriendly formulated message. GPSLeo (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Question on U4C authority

I would like to question whether the U4C actually has the authority to impose the specific remedy suggested here.

As I understand the Enforcement guidelines, the U4C is empowered to take action in cases of systemic failure, including investigations, blocks, or bans where necessary. I do not dispute that the U4C can block or globally ban a user under its remit.

However, I do not see where the U4C is expressly authorized to decide who a local project may or may not trust with advanced rights. Administrator and similar permissions are community-granted positions of trust, normally subject to local governance processes. The proposed remedy - not only removing advanced permissions, but also imposing a one-year prohibition on local re-nomination - seems to go beyond what the Guidelines provide. It effectively dictates to Commons who may or may not stand for local election, which looks more like community governance than UCoC enforcement.

If the intention is to sanction the user, a block or ban is within the U4C's clear authority. If the intention is to regulate who Commons can elect, I am not convinced that falls within the scope of the Enforcement Guidelines as currently written. Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the question @Josve05a. The U4C scope includes the following:

• Handles complaints and appeals in the circumstances outlined in the Enforcement Guidelines
• Performs any investigations necessary to resolve said complaints and appeals

So what are the circumstances outlined in the Enforcement Guidelines? For that you have to look to section 3, responsive work. Importantly the Charter also provides extra context and detail and it very explicitly - and for me in a way that does not cotradict the EG - allows for ":Monitoring reports of UCoC breaches. The U4C may conduct additional investigations and take actions where appropriate." The EG (and Charter) also explicitly prohibit actions, except in instance of systemic failure, for communities that have a high-level decision making body. This prohibition on action re-affirms the ability to take action in other scenarios that are not-systemic failures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I remain concerned that the proposed one-year bar on re-nomination goes beyond the U4C's mandate. The Enforcement Guidelines emphasize subsidiarity, stating that enforcement should primarily occur through local processes wherever possible. Removing rights via a block or ban is explicitly within scope, but preventing Commons from re-electing a user regulates the community's own election process, which the Guidelines do not authorize. Josve05a (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In my mind we have an obligation to make sure that "Outcomes shall be proportional to the severity of the violation". So we're effectively saying that the outcome which is proportional to the severity is for A.Savin to not be an administrator on Commons for at least one year. At that point, in-line with the principle of subsidiarity, Commons can make its own decision. I do take the principle of subsidiarity quite seriously - it is part of the reason that I delayed on voting on this remedy. It also informs what I want as the outcome to our other Commons case - which would put the decision making back on Commons to decide. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, as long as the committee has genuinely taken into account that it believes it is empowered to enforce this action, I'm okay with it. I would still wish for clearer wording in all the guidance and Charter pages, but alas. Off-topic, but I wonder: even if the user has misused the admin toolset, is that the only behavior the committee believes needs remedying? If the alleged uncivil behavior is not addressed, removing advanced permissions would not prevent the user from continuing to act uncivilly through normal edits. Or do you believe that the local community has a better way to handle uncivility in regards to non-admin users than with admin users? This raises a question of whether the proposed remedy truly tackles the underlying cause of concern. Josve05a (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions here and you'll get your answer. Admins (except Christian Ferrer) are not allowed to say incivilities. Non-admins are allowed to a certain extend. --A.Savin (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how it works on Meta but on Commons if a regular user made legal threats they would be insistently blocked. I'm sure I'll probably be indefed once my case gets kicked back to Commons if that's the way they go with it to. Even though I haven't done 1% of the things you have. So being de-sysoped is pretty mild. You'll get a year break to cool off or whatever, reapply and become an admin again because they really don't care about how you guys act, and then go back to passively aggressively abusing users while I'm off using Flickr. Big deal. You should be grateful that you were an admin to begin with and that other ones like Josve05a will defend you know matter how bad the behavior is. I've certainly never gotten as many chances, breaks, or had people defend me as much as you have. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

If I were you and had block log as long as yours, including intimidation/harassment blocks, I would be more careful with demanding more repressions: once in effect, they may easily boomerang to you. --A.Savin (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I haven't looked at the block log in a minute but putting aside the ones that were done by you and Yann as part of retaliatory involved editing I have like 2 blocks that were for a couple of weeks each. That's hardly anything worth the way I'm being treated about it. Let alone a U4C case or an indef. The problem with you guys is that your retaliatory behavior is self justifying. "You've been blocked. Therefore you deserve to be blocked more." It doesn't matter if there's an actual reason for it. You'll just come up with one after the fact and cite previous blocks if anyone questions you.

Like the one you brought up for harassment. I made one comment to Andy Dingley in a single discussion and I have zero history of having anything do with him. That's definitionally not harassment. Yann just made it the block reason because admins on Commons can do and say whatever they want. But do you care? No, of course not. I harass people now simply because an administrator said so and you guys are above reproach. I'd think you'd have more sympathy for my situation since your whole claim is that this is a made up revenge play. Apparently not though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that section 3.2 of the UCoC makes it clear that there are higher expectations for advanced permissions holders. From a practical perspective, it is also more difficult for people to stand up to those with the technical ability to block them. The remedy of desysopping levels the playing field, making it more easy for the community to address chronic incivility. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Possible close?

What is the U4C waiting on to close this case? All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Time is the fire in which we burn. It's closed now, and the motion was enacted. --Ghilt (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)