Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Admin response on Wikimedia Commons

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

Parties
Parties	Notifications
DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1]
Aafi (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[2]
Abzeronow (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[3]
Dronebogus (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[4]

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91

Description of the problem - (DoctorWhoFan91)

The case is basically two-fold, of two related but distinct discussions- it relates to the larger case at hand, because it involves actions by admins in areas of discussion that have been going on for so long, that lots of admins and users have been involved in it.

Part 1:(Violation=35% chance of 3.1 Harrasment by way of a statement that might be counted as sexist; 3.2 because of intimidation of anti-policy block, via misrepresentation of facts) The focus at hand- There were several DR(Deletion Request)s going on for a category related to Exey Panteleev (more about him in part 2) which were closed by an admin named Abzeronow. One of those closes involved a [statement] saying "it illustrates the concept of unicode"- now the issue is that the images basically comprise of unicode symbols and number painted on the bodies of naked women; now, as it is a closing statement, it would almost always mean that it illustrates the concept well, as keeping poor illustrations is not what happens at Commons. Combined with the fact that several users over the years have voted to keep the images because the women are "sexy" and that "it would stimulate the brain of young boys to learn better" made me feel that it might be a misogynistic statement.

Now, assuming good faith, I decided to ask Abzeronow to clarify/modify his statement, as one can unknowingly say discriminatory stuff- he decided to not answer, twice. Now, the next part of dispute resolution per commons would be to go to an avenue like an admin's noticeboard- so I went to one, and described the situation. There, another admin named The Squirrel Conspiracy decided to misrepresent what was going on to associate it with part 2 to make it seem like I was "forum shopping" and trying to relitigate a block; and threatened a block against me, so I closed the thread despite the fact that it is what one is supposed to do for dispute resolution.

Now, I have come to meta-wiki, as sexism is a violation of the UCoC, especially when it also involves admins misusing their powers- which requires context and more examples, as I would elaborate on in part 2.

Part 2/Context:(Violation= 3.2 abuse of power by admins and senior editors) So, for context, Exey Panteleev is an artist whose work has generated much controversy on Commons- his work basically involves photos of computer science concepts painted onto the bodies of naked women, and he basically won awards and coverage very early on. Since then, there have been serveral DRs regarding his work, some from prudes(whose opinions are anti-policy) and some who take other views(usually per policy). The issue is that there are serveral admins on the keep side in a way that they ignore all statements made according to policy by equating them to the prudish anti-policy view of no nudity.

Now, recently, there were months-long DRs going on about Exey- and it ended up into a discussion of the scope of these images at an avenue called village pump. While that was going on, Abzeronow closed the DRs with the common reason being "in scope"- which, given that discussion was going on, means Abzeronow acted anti-policy. I decided to renominate them, as is Commons policy. The Squirrel Conspiracy proceeded to close them, again anti-policy, as it is allowed to re-nom files if ones think the close was anti-policy.

This spawned a separate conversation on the village pump- one which I was involved in, but which I left eventually, because a user named Dronebogus was attacking admins (which he has done before), and I didn't wanna be associated with him; and because him attacking admins meant it gave admins like TSC and Abzeronow the chance to not give proper arguments, by speaking of Drone's behavior only. Then the events of part 1 happened.

Recently, there was another DR in that area- and I voted according to the building consensus that the images are in scope, so the crop which was being discussed could be used, and gave some examples how- a view also shared by another user there in that discussion. I also decided to interrogate TSC on his vote, as he had just called for a block on me for having his very opinion, which he saw as an attack on him, instead of a question regarding clarification, given that I couldn't have asked in the AN thread, as that would mean TSC would block me. This DR, btw, was closed anti-policy wise by admin Bedivere, as it was only half a day old, and DRs are usually supposed to stay open for a week.

Post-block actions: TSC, despite being involved, decided to block me for disruption (a misrepresentation, as the attacks were by Dronebogus, and the AN thread was not about the close, and the "taunts" were questions he wanted not to be asked and had threatened a block on me for), personal attacks (that was Dronebogus; the only personal attack I might have made was calling some people "horny men"- but given that this people's response was basically nude women hot, or in the vein of such, or in the case of Drone, having [stuff] like "This user thinks the right to post naked futanaris on relevant pages is the best thing about Wikipedia." and "waifu"s, and the fact that user defends nudity when it is made by him, no matter how mediocre compared to others and hence out of scope due to quality.), and disrupting a DR to make a point (which I didn't, as I shared my honest opinion with another honest user, and because I asked questions on words TSC threatened a block over, and because I pinged the only users that Abzeronow listened to while he closed the DRs in an anti-policy way.

(Look at Commons:User talk:DoctorWhoFan91 for the subsequent part) Admin Aafi thinks I shouldn't ask questions about people's langauge unless I'm a 100% certain that the answer to the question would be yes, considering it attacking/casting aspersions- which seems weird, given that I wouldn't be asking questions if I knew for certain if Abzeronow's comment was according to a particular interpretation.

Aafi then proceeded to block me for a longer period of time and taking my TPA while also misrepresenting the situation once again, by stating I had described part 1 at various avenues. Aafi also hasn't read what's going on per his own words, and yet acts like he does. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - (DoctorWhoFan91)

I tried talking to Abzeronow to ask him to remove his potentially misogynistic statement. I tried explaining to admins why what they are saying are misrepresenations, while all they(mostly Aafi) have done is try to force me to adhere to their point of view, without putting a single actual point why expect the fact that they are admins. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Conspiracy

Previous attempts at a solution - The Squirrel Conspiracy

Aafi

Previous attempts at a solution - Aafi

My first interaction with DWF was on 7:47 on 7 September 2025 with my comment on her unwarranted thread against Abzeronow on ANU. See c:Special:Permalink/1082099908#Abzeronow where I clearly mentioned that I wasn't myself intersted in NSFW things and beyond, and advised DWF that her behavior was not good either, and that she should not feed the feeling that the admin was "misogynistic". I happened to later review her unblock request and advised again that she drops the stick. c:Special:Permalink/1084050228#Unblock: Here, I advised her to go through en:WP:COAL, and don't bring arguments to a place where they don't belong. To help her cool, I also reduced the block to one week. I also tried to make her understand that how her interpretation of Abzeronow's comment was anti-policy (AGF and else). My decline reason of her unblock request also mentioned that she should not bring satsuma instead of a ball in the next argument (which could result in a longer block or probably TPA being revoked).

In the larger discussion, I tried guiding her that by default we should assume good faith. Making out a hell of a single statement that she alone thinks is misogynistic wasn't something that required an ANU discussion. This wasn't even a conflict or a dispute, but just her misunderstanding. However nothing helped, and she continued bringing the same aspersions and satsuma again and again which eventually led me to block her for one month - to avoid having more of the community time wasted and to have her cool (probably).

Abzeronow

Previous attempts at a solution - Abzeronow

Dronebogus

Previous attempts at a solution - Dronebogus

I removed the futa box from my userpage since it was something I made when I was less mature and was in poor taste. There’s nothing offensive about calling a fictional character your “waifu”. I have currently 3 images of sexual positions/activities I drew on Commons— that’s the contemporary extent of “nudity” I have uploaded and I don’t see how that’s relevant here. --Dronebogus (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DWF seems really intent on the “waifus are sexist” angle. Husbandos are a thing too. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DWF seems to consider futanari a transmisogynistic slur like trap (sense 2:2) and waifu a general misogynistic slur like whore, making these claims the primary basis of her argument against me. Neither term is listed as “vulgar” or “offensive” in their respective Wiktionary entries. The former’s entry even has several actually offensive/vulgar synonyms for comparison, like dickgirl and shemale). Dronebogus (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DWF is essentially asking me to prove waifu/futa are not offensive, while she can claim that they are with no evidence beyond her idiosyncratic interpretation of the terms (in her dictionary “Waifu” apparently means “submissive woman” and “futanari” means “fetish porn of trans women”). This is similar to the way she just expects everyone to accept whatever Abzeronow said as misogynistic. Dronebogus (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DWF has attempted to prove her claims by citing sources that, in my opinion, don’t have anything to do with the actual topic or just demonize anime and manga as misogynistic in general. This is symptomatic of how the opinions she expresses are devoid of nuance and those who disagree with her are (in her view) morally wrong and not simply thinking differently or incorrect in their reasoning. Dronebogus (talk) 12:06, 13 September 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 (Adamant1)

I don't think DoctorWhoFan91 acted great here and was actually planning on telling them to chill it with the swearing before they were blocked. That said, there's a real issue with admins on Commons closing DRs without providing adequate justifications. Often times when they have voted on the DR themselves or are otherwise clearly bias about it. I actually did a proposal to ban administrators from super voting when closing scope related DRs (like the ones having to do with Exey Panteleev's photographs here if you scroll down to "Disallow administrators from supervoting when closing SCOPE related DRs" (Sorry, but I can't get a direct link to work for some reason. Someone can fix it for me if they know how). But it doesn't look like the proposal is going to pass. Although people still seem to agree that it's an issue.

Anyway, the wider problem of admins doing involved editing and closing DRs that they have voted on and/or clearly bias about really needs to be dealt with. The same goes for them not writing adequate closing justifications. Personally, I'd like to see better wording in the guidelines about how administrator have to be clear about why they close DRs certain ways. As well as something saying that they generally shouldn't close DRs that they are involved in or otherwise have bias opinions about. I really don't see proposals for either ones passing though. Since unfortunately the admins on Commons will just shoot down any proposal having to do with them. So maybe that's something the U4C can help the community with even if DoctorWhoFan91's behavior wasn't great here.

A lot of these situations could easily be avoided by administrator's staying away from involved editing and being clearer about why they make certain decisions. I really don't blame DoctorWhoFan91, or anyone else, for getting frustrated and lashing out when administrators are so dismissive of questions or complaints. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Pppery)

Note that I've blocked DoctorWhoFan91 from editing Meta. Not just due to filing this case (or any other one specific event), but their entire editing history here consists of nothing more than unproductive rants about not getting their way on sister projects, which is not useful and we could do with out. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 03:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery At least you could have waited until this case is decided, because the situation now is embarrassing for U4C, we cannot have discussions or questions with the complainant and the case has been open for less than 24 hours. It would be like denying someone entry to the court and harming the integrity of the case, and all cases deserve to be dealt with fairly. Ibrahim.ID (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (GPSLeo)

I think there is a misunderstanding about what content Commons hosts and what we consider as educational. Photos of a misogynistic art project is in scope if there is some discussion about it. We also host propaganda material published by Nazi Germany, Russia, Iran or Trump. Such content is in scope because it is needed to have such content to give context to it and for example to show how propaganda works. We only delete such content if copyright or personality rights are violated. If there are no reasons to assume that the women were forced to make these photos there are no reasons to delete them. If we would start to rate what content with a problematic original message is okay for Commons and what is not would be the end of the archive project. GPSLeo (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Jmabel)

With reference to the accusation that Abzeronow said a bunch of unicode on a naked women is illustrating the concept well you will be unsurprised that Abzeronow said no such thing. He said that Exey Panteleev's photography is, in general, in scope as a notable artist. We've had a large number of DRs on Commons trying to get his works deleted, and while at least one crop was deleted as useless, the consensus has pretty consistently been "keep". At the same time, no, these are not useful illustrations of concepts in computer science, which is why we reached the decision now given guideline status as part of commons:Commons:Principle of least astonishment; the last paragraph tere sums up how we are handling these. - Jmabel (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that DWF states that I am wrong, and does indeed link a place where Abzeronow said it "illustrates the concept". He did not, however, say it illustrates it well. - Jmabel (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Someone please notify the other 4 parties, as my TPA has been taken. Also, apologies for the barebones case- I would have added separate links for everything, but I just too tired from arguing with an admin who wants to force his own views on me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ferien (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just started reading and have a question after a couple of lines. @User:DoctorWhoFan91 assuming good faith, I decided to ask Abzeronow to clarify/modify his statement Is this how you ask questions when you "assume good faith"? --Civvì (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was losing my patience because Abzeronow was avoiding answering questions regarding the statement, and also part 2 stuff on the talk page and at village pump/proposals, while people were continuing to make votes without explaining their votes, as they are supposed to.

I know I lost my patience- I did move away from the discussion on VP/P as a result.

Also, that's not the part where I was assuming 100% good faith, it was diminishing with every refusal of Abzeronow to modify or clarify his statement. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:BRPever: I did drop the stick, other than the part that admins were misusing their power to force on me, instead of following policy. So you think they were infact inappropriate, and hence deserving of a question for clarification, which if not answered, can be, as per policy, escalated by means allowed by dispute resolution policy. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Ghilt: How is the conclusion incorrect- how many Commons DRs have you looked at? My support is low- you mean the low sample size of 0/3(all 3 of which no experience with misogyny)? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are community projects. To change their perceptions in general, you need to be part of the community (including not irritating many), be constructive and convince them with good arguments instead of escalating. I am missing this so far. Ghilt (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt I asked abzeronow to clarify his comment multiple times- he didn't respond and then decided to double down- policy states the next step to dispute resolution is to get to the admin's noticeboard- where I was threatened with a block by an involved admin. Tell me what I was supposed to do- I can't have a discussion alone, can I? I can't talk to someone who doesn't wanna listen and threatens blocks, or calls it nonsense, or says that a comment shouldn't be discussed until it's too egregious, can I? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everybody on your way didn't see it as you did, so either you were wrong or you need to improve your argumentation. And regarding your question "no experience with misogyny": You do not need to be a tree to have an opinion on the deforestation of the amazon. Ghilt (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost everybody on your way didn't see it as you did"- what, three male admins?

"You do not need to be a tree to have an opinion on the deforestation of the amazon."- I think I would value the opinion of one tribe living in the Amazon over three corporations, despite the numbers involved, you know? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are discounting their views because of their gender, which is not acceptable. And even a female member of the U4C has told you, it isn't misogynistic in their view. You seem to not listen even to peers and not mind irritating people. This is not a sustainable approach. Ghilt (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they discounted mine by calling it "nonsense" and "blockable"- while they have no experience of what is being talked about and no desire to know.

Which female member of the U4C?

My line of questioning was according to policy, threatening to block me and calling stuff nonsense is not. All I ask(ed) is a clarification of a comment that has sexist connonations. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of the U4C has been-

"don’t seem as inappropriate as you are suggesting" "I don't see any violations in that comment" "Taking a problem that is a 7 and treating it like it's a 10" "Others have summed up my thoughts well above."- I agree- however it is the lack of response and Ab's blaming of me that is inappropriate and takes the issue to a 10

"The conclusion "almost always mean that it illustrates the concept well" is incorrect." - Look at the DR closes of any DR close- the concluding statement is always about why the decision is what it is- how does it imply that it's not a possible conclusion.

DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Civvì: all I asked, and all I still basically ask is Abzeronow modify his comment "it illustrates unicode" by either removing it, or by changing it in a way that removes misogynistic connotations. For the rest, as I said before, I can show how it is in fact anti-policy, but I do not care about that point, I just want the comment modified, and an acceptance that trying to force otherwise on me is incorrect and anti-policy. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Barkeep49 (copying from my talk page): I didn't turn the 7 into a 10- I asked Abzeronow multiple times to clarify/modify/discuss his comment, out of good faith, as is policy- he is the one who decided to bend policy again and again and again. But saying stuff like "this whole site can't even be bothered to listen to a small single thing by a woman" is inflammatory.": look at the ANU thread- men constantly saying they don't think a certain statement might be read as misogynistic, so I should be banned, that I'm speaking nonsense; look at my talk page- not a single move towards accepting that my questioning of Abzeronow was largely per policy. Don't act like they wanna listen to a woman, when all a woman asked was that a statement be modified. And also, none of the people at Commons or Meta have been women. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

My advice would be to drop the stick. I don’t see the blocks as an abuse of power. The unblock request was also handled appropriately. The comments on that DR closure, in my view, don’t seem as inappropriate as you are suggesting.--BRP^ever 04:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion "almost always mean that it illustrates the concept well" is incorrect. Regarding the blocks, i cannot see any power abuse. On the contrary, part of the escalation is that you continue to raise an issue when your support is very low. And your approach is not convincing others to change their mind either. So please let it go. --Ghilt (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorWhoFan91, I fully support the battle against misogyny. However, from a tactical point of view, I would suggest making better choices. We could spend hours discussing the context and the content that led to this request but that is not the point here. I don't see any violations in that comment, nor do I see abuses by Commons admins. There is no point in insisting. --Civvì (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's part of something I just wrote on DFW's talk page: Wikipedia needs to do better with women, but the issues with your conduct have been identified as issues by people of multiple genders. Taking a problem that is a 7 and treating it like it's a 10 (on a 10 point scale) is not helpful and has been part of why you've run into issues. The other problem being that when told, whether in friendly or in direct terms, that you need to move onto something else, you often will continue. The whole situation with you just makes me sad. Even having to write this message makes me sad - I think you have so much good to contribute to this site and project. You're like 80% there and in many ways it's the most important 80%. The fact that we can't get you that last 20% of the way and that failure is leading to sanction after sanction, despite the help of a lot of people who see all the good you have to offer, contributes to that sadness I feel. If something doesn't change, and soon, you will end up globally banned and that truly would be a loss and a shame for everyone. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others have summed up my thoughts well above. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
late vote, I had already made up my mind yesterday and I don't see that violated UCoC. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, --Ferien (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This case cannot be accepted under the current vote tally, and further discussion is not productive. The U4C has declined to hear this case. – Ajraddatz (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]