Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Admin conduct of BRPever on Simple English Wikipedia

This case is closed. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. ~2025-36756-26 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

---

~2025-36756-26

Description of the problem - (~2025-36756-26)

There are significant concerns over the admin conduct of BRPever on Simple English Wikipedia. BRPever is a bureaucrat, checkuser and administrator on Simple English Wikipedia. As Simple English Wikipedia does not have an arbitration committee, addressing his admin conduct at U4C level appears necessary when local resolution has been sealed off by BRPever with his power.

Yesterday, Polygnotus, a user with a cross-wiki history of incivility, vandalism, canvassing, personal attacks etc. (here and here), accused someone of sockpuppeting without evidence when he got confronted over removing sourced content from multiple articles without editing summaries in addition to his creation of an attack page against particular persons. BRPever, with an apparent pattern of favoritism towards Polygnotus (here and here), closed the thread in favor of Polygnotus and made blocks by taking his allegations at face value. The absence of admin actions against Polygnotus despite clear evidence of his long-term violations is purely unfair and unjustified.

Eptalon, a bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter and administrator on Simple English Wikipedia, said: Hello all, just to clarify: as a checkuser, I cannot link usernames, and either temporary accounts or ip addresses, and as to oversight, there is a mailing list where you can report cases. Eptalon (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If Eptalon were right, how could BRPever link temporary accounts to random persons and decide that they must be sockpuppets without any case discussions? The only plausible explanation is BRPever took Polygnotus' allegations at face value and helped Polygnotus remove opponents who confronted his violations. This is not the first time BRPever acted in this manner: 1, 2 and 3. BRPever's selective use of admin tools has granted Polygnotus de facto impunity for his months-long violations. BRPever appears, at minimum, to have breached UCoC 3.2.

Previous attempts at a solution - (~2025-36756-26)

First and second attempt, which was removed twice by admin Fehufanga based on unfounded claims of block evasion to shut down resolution attempts. Apparently, they are taking the side of Polygnotus and refusing to enforce any rules on him. I do not see a chance that local resolution is possible.

Suggested solutions - (~2025-36756-26)

1. Formal warning to BRPever or desyopping of BRPever
2. U4C enforcement on Polygnotus

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

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

I'm closing this. We can decide later whether to delete it or not. --Civvì (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Motions

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

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.